The Waikato Times SATURDAY, AUGUST 28, 1937 “THE RETURN TO THEM."

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20284, 28 August 1937, Page 6

The Waikato Times SATURDAY, AUGUST 28, 1937 “THE RETURN TO THEM."

When the Primary Products Marketing Bill "was before Parliament the member for Waitomo, Mr IV. J. Broadfoot, interrupted the Minister of Finance, in the course of a speech, and asked if the interests of wives who worked on farms were being given consideration. Mr Nash at once replied: “If the wife has to work —and I hope she will not, other than in looking after her children and her home the price to be paid to the farmer ought to include a sum that will compensate her for the work she has to do on the farm.” It was made quite clear to Mr Nash's colleague, the Minister of Labour, when he received a deputation at Te Awamutu, that many women had had to return to the milkingsheds because the farmer could not get the labour necessary, or he could not afford to pay wages that would induce men to accept farm work. The prices paid for dairy produce last year were an average of the 8-10 year period with a small addition allegedly to off-set increased costs. Many people have wondered how the authorities viewed the results of the first, the experimental year of the new system, but except for some general statements claiming that it had been an unqualified success little has been said. The Minister of Finance happens to be also a member of the Wellington Harbour Board, and during the week that body had to take steps to increase its revenue by raising certain charges. Mr Nash took part in the debate and made this very interesting and important statement: “If the farmer worked 70 or 80 hours a week, as had been stated, then that was entirely wrong. He knew of only one section of the farming community which could be working such hours, the dairy farmers, and he would say that if they worked 70 or 80 hours, and if their'families worked without wages, then they were paid for every hour of work and every hour of work by the members of their families by the return to them in the price fixed for their produce.” Here, for the first time, is a clear statement that in the opinion of the Minister the prices paid last year were sufficient to give dairy farmers a reasonable return, based on a working week of 70 to 80 hours, and also to provide a sufficient return, on the same basis, for any work done by their wives and children. It would be interesting to know if the members of the Price Committee also adopted that view, and whether it in any way influenced the fixing of prices for the current year. It has been stated on many occasions that farmers who could use domestic labour may have made ends meet, with guranteed prices, but it was assumed that this labour was not paid for on the ordinary basis; in 6hort, that it was cheaper labour. Those who had to employ outside labour found that costs had mounted so rapidly that the new system conferred little, if any, benefit. The chief interest of the producers now lies in tho prices to be paid for the 1937-38 season, and it will come as a surprise to many of them to learn that, in the opinion of the Minister of Marketing, the prices paid last year were sufficient to enable them to pay for all labour supplied by the family, and obtain a return for themselves on a 70-80 hour week basis. According to Mr Nash they were ‘‘paid for every hour.” Here is tho official view of the prices fixed for the first year. The producers must put it to the only practical test the results obtained by them during the period. If they can endorse the Minister's statement —that the prices enabled them to pay for every hour worked by members of the family, and to obtain a reasonable return themselves, on the average of the time worked —then they should certainly say so. The statement seems to conflict in a most direct way with the views expressed by chairmen and others at the annual meetings of the dairy companies, and if actual experience shows that it is not correct then it will be the clear duty of the farmers’ organisations to lodge a vigorous protest. The matter is now wholly one of fact, and if the Minister's expressed belief is wrong then the best way to deal with the matter would be to place the facts before him.