GOVERNMENT DILEMMA.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20280, 24 August 1937, Page 9

GOVERNMENT DILEMMA.

NEW GUARANTEED PRICES COMMITTEE’S HANDS TIED. MR 0. €. MAZENGARB’S VIEWS. (Special to Times). TUAKAU, Monday. “The Government appears now to realise that it is on the horns of a dilemma in fixing this year’s guaranteed price, and I am afraid that the price when announced will be a big disappointment to farmers,” said Mr 0. C. Mazengarb, of Wellington, in the course of an address delivered at Tuakau this evening in the interest of the New Zealand National Party. Mr S. H. Crawford presided over an attendance of 300. A vote of thanks to the speaker and of confidence in the National Party, moved by Mr W. A. Smeed, and seconaed by Mr W. W Glasgow, was carried.

Mr Mazengarb, who dealt chiefly with the guaranteed price policy of the Government, traced the evolution of the Labour Party’s marketing theories from the time of the election campaign onward. Prior to the election, he said, the Labour Party had realised, that it oould not hope to . control the treasury benches without the support of the country electorates, and the party had accordingly cast about tQ secure the farmer’s vote by extending him sympathy and by assuring him ot a higher, living standard, free of the dread of market fluctuations.

Farmers generally, however, had always opposed State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, so that the Labour Party had to submerge this ultimate objective temporarily and advance the notion of a “guaranteed price.”

“That was a wonderful expression,” Mr Mazengarb said, “for it conveyed the idea that the farmer would not suffer any more from market changes and would enjoy a proper standard of living. Many farmers thought they were voting for a guaranteed minimum price, and few realised that they were voting for a system whereby they would be prevented from controlling the sale of their own produce.”

There was still some comfort in the idea of a guaranteed price, he continued, but it all depended on what the price was and what it cost to produce the goods to be confiscated at that price. The Marketing Legislation. Dealing with various aspects of the Primary Products Marketing Act, Mr Mazengarb referred to the methods adopted for the fixing of the first season’s guaranteed prices and the repercussions of the subsequent rise in production costs, which had started the movement for a compensated price. It was apparent, however, that the Government would have nothing to do with this compensated price, arguing that there was no difference between it and the guaranteed price. The Statute laid down certain considerations to be applied In fixing the price for the coming season, these considerations including the necessity for the maintenance of stability and efficiency in the dairy industry, the question of the costs Involved in the efficient production of dairy produce, the standard of living of persons employed in the dairy industry, compared with the general standard of living throughout the Dominion, the estimated cost of marketing to the department and any other matters deemed relevant. The Government appeared now to realise that it was on the horns of a dilemma in fixing this year’s price. The Public Works policy and the general administration had caused costs of production to rise and ah “adequate remuneration to producers” might well mean a price far in excess of the overseas return. Committee Hampered. To escape from Ils dilemma, the Government had set up an advisory committee, hut it could easily be seen from the Statute that the hands of the committee were tied in two ways.

First, the price for this and subsequent years is to be “such that any efficient producer. . . . under usual conditions and in normal circumstances should be assured of a sufficient nett return to enable him to maintain himself and his family in a reasonable state of comfort.”

No provision was made, said Mr J Mazengarb, for the farmer who did j not reach the standard of efficiency set, or who, through ill-health, scarcity of labour, occurrence of drought or disease, was unable to produce on an ' efficient basis. But who was an i efficient farmer, and was the standard ! of efficiency to be 220, 250, 280 or 3001 b per cow? Again, the return for foresight and expenditure of capital was to be “a reasonable state of comfort.” Anything above that passed io the Government, while the man who had not been so efficient would not even secure a reasonable standard of comfort. The second way In which Ihe powers of tlio committee had been limited was the necessity for ils members lo consider the maintenance of the efficiency and. stability or the industry. “Farmers will find, therefore,” commented the speaker, ‘‘that the price has been kept low in order to enable Hie Government io continue its present policy. The committee has obviously had an unenviable job, and il is tolerably clear that the Government is determined to reduce the dairy farmer to the level of a wages man." “Fatuous and Meaningless.” In effect, all that the guarantee meant to the farmer was that if lie were efficient, if lie worked hard enough, experienced no drought, if disease did not break out in his herd and if he did not suffer from ill-health, tlion he would have a reasonable standard of foil. If he were not “clficienlor if luck ran against him, ho did not gel Hint reasonable standard. “This method of fixing a guaranteed price is just a way of ‘holding Hie word of promise lo I lie ear and breaking it io I lie hope.’ ” said Mr Mazengarb. “In respect to the guaranteed price the Government will try lo fix responsibility on its committee." It. was the same with the Basic Wage which, stated the Statute, was to lie such as would maintain a man, his wife and three children in a fair and reasonable standard of comfort. The Statute also provided, however, that, in fixing the basic wage, the committee should have regard to the general economic, ami financial condi(Cootinued la previous column.)