The Waikato Times MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1937. PAYMENTS FOR CHEESE.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20261, 2 August 1937, Page 6

The Waikato Times MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1937. PAYMENTS FOR CHEESE.

The postponement of any announcement with regard to guaranteed prices for 1937-38 will be taken by a majority of the producers to mean that Cabinet is awaiting the return of the Minister of Marketing. His decision will be final. In the meantime there is the question of the use to which any surplus in the Dairy Industry Account is to be put, and apparently here, too, the views of Mr Nash must be obtained. At the recent conference of the National Dairy -Association, held in Hamilton, some questions were asked at the conclusion of the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture. Mr Perry (Bruntwood) asked for an assurance that the lid margin between butter and cheese would be paid to the cheese companies. Mr Lee Martin replied that he could not give the assurance as it was a matter for Cabinet. “ I did say,” he added, “ that when the lid differential was made the Government recognised that that was due to the cheese industry.” Mr Perry interjected: “Mr Nash gave a promise,” and the Minister replied: “Well, if Mr Nash gave a promise, and you can verify it, the Government will live up to it.” That shows clearly that the decision depends on what the Minister of Marketing had to say on the matter. The statement of his colleague at the conference makes it of »the greatest importance that any references to payments from the Dairy Industry Account made by Mr Nash should be carefully noted. They are fairly numerous, as would be expected in view of the fact that he promoted the legislation, was the chief exponent of the guaranteed price plan during the election and guided the Bill through Parliament. In the opening stages it was evident that the Minister was feeling his way cautiously, but when the Primary Products Marketing Bill came before the House he was most explicit. However, probably the most direct and convincing reference regarding the procedure to be adopted was made during the financial debate. The Hon. A. Hamilton said that “the Prime Minister ought to say that if there is a surplus in the fund at the end of the year the dairy farmer who supplied the milk or cream would get it.” At once Mr Savage interjected: “ How many times does the honourable gentleman wish me to say it? It has been stated half a dozen times.” During the same debate there was a most interesting, and it may prove a most important, passage between the Minister and the member for Stratford, Mr W. J. Poison. The Minister had said that under the scheme the farmer would get all the benefits. The Hansard report reads as follows: The Hon. Mr Nash: The farmer gets every fraction of benefit that comes from the sale of his produce. Mr Poison: Not the local stuff. The Hon. Mr Nash: He will get every fraction of a penny from the net return from the sale of his produce. Mr Poison: How can he get the benefit with respect to the local article when the Government has reduced the price 2d per lb? That has gone. The Hon. Mr Nash: He will get every fraction of a penny that is realised from the sale of his produce overseas. The Right Hon. Mr Coates: By way of bonus? The Hon. Mr Nash: No. He will get every fraction of a penny . . . I am saying that the farmer will get every fraction that is realised from the sale of his products. Nothing could be plainer than that, and no promise more definite, so that, relying on the statement made by Mr Lee Martin, and the promise having been verified by Hansard, there should be no ground for doubting that any surplus in the funds will be duly paid to the producers.