LOSS TO PRODUCERS

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20953, 4 November 1939, Page 9

LOSS TO PRODUCERS

GUARANTEED SYSTEM 600 AT PROTEST MEETING MR A. J. SINCLAIR’S ADDRESS (Special to Times) WHAKATANE, Friday A declaration that the batter and cheese producers of the Dominion had been deliberately deprived of approximately £1»500,000 in the 19938-39 season was made by Mr A. J. Sinclair, secretary-manager of the Te Awamutu Dairy Company, in the course of an address at a mass meeting in Whakatane last night. The meeting, attended by more ' than 600 persons, from a wide area, passed resolutions urging the Government to give some relief to the farming industry. The Mayor, Mr B. S. Barry, was in the chair and there was a large number of women in the audience. The meeting was addressed also by Mr R. M. Algie, director of the New Zealand Freedom Association. Three resolutions were passed, one asking the Government to take steps immediately to give some relief to the farming community, another asking it to take steps to give relief to businessmen who were being ruined by restrictive measures, and a third supporting the calling of a national conference of dairy farmers, businessmen and representatives of all other sections of the commuiity. Mr Sinclair said that directors of dairy companies throughout the Dominion were seriously perturbed at the socialistic trend of recent legislation relating to the industry, some of it being under the guise of war regulations. However, he would confine himself to gt presentation of the dairyfarmer’s case for an increase in the guaranteed price. The speaker outlined all the negotiations which had taken place between the industry and the Government from the setting up of the advisory committee in June, 1938. A Great Service “The 1938 Advisory Committee performed a great service to the dairying industry,” he said. “Its members represented equitably the two parties to the transaction, and they had in addition the legal mind of Sir Francis Frazer, who acted as chairman. The committee sat for 25 days in July, 1938, and took voluminous evidence. It discovered and defined that elusive individual for whom we had been searching for several years ‘the average efficient producer, operating an average efficient farm in normal circumstances, and under usual conditions.’ “It established standards of production per cow and per male unit of labour which are unassailable. Most important of all, it reached a unanimous conclusion in recommending a fair and equitable price to be paid to the dairy farmer for the 193839 season. “The strength of the dairy farmer’s case rests on the fact that the Government members of the committee recognised that the evidence was irrefutable, and the report to the Government recommended a price for 1938-39 of 15.605 d a lb butter, which would have enabled the average efficient factory to pay 16.75 d alb butterfat for the season.” Shock to Government Mr Sinclair said that the committee's report was submitted to the Government in August, 1938, and the whole industry waited anxiously for the decision. “There is no doubt, whatever, he said, “that it came as a shock to the Government when they were confronted with a unanimous report, set out in clear and unequivocal terms. “The Government refused to pay the price. The evidence was unassailable, but the Minister of Marketing arbitrarily refused to accept the standards set up by the 1938 committee. He set up new standards of his own and announced a payment of 14.89 d a lb butter, or 15.88 d a lb butterfat. By this action the Government deliberately deprived the butter and cheese producers in the 1938-39 season of approximately £1,500,00. The speaker then dealt with the subsequent attempts by the industry, without avail, to get the Government to reconsider its decision. “The farmer’s costs continued to rise after the committee’s report was submitted,” he said, “and it must be remembered that increasing costs hit the farmer in ‘three ways—on his farm, in his factory, and as a member of the community. In spite of this the Minister of Marketing suggested to the industry in February this year that it should accept the same price of 14.89 d per lb butter for the 1939-40 season. Generous Gesture “The Dairy Board conference in March rejected this proposal, but made a generous gesture. He said it would overlook the increases in costs since the committee’s report was submitted, provided the Government would pay for the 1939-40 season the price recommended by the committee for the previous year. This offer was rejected by the Government.” The speaker outlined the negotiations between the Government and the Dairy Industry Council, which consisted of representatives of the New Zealand Dairy Board, National Dairy Federation, South Island Dairy Association and the New Zealand Farmers’ Union. Very Able Fight “No more representative body has ever acted for the dairy farmer,” said Mr Sinclair, “and no abler fight has ever been put up on his behalf. If the day comes for this council to pass out of existence, I hope the farmers will erect a tombstone to its memory, with an epitaph similar to that which appears on the grave of a farmer who sleeps peacefully in Arizona: ‘He did his damnedest; angels can do no more.’ ” (Laughter and applause).

Mr Sinclair said that negotiations between the council and the Government terminated on September 8 last, when the council intimated that, in order to maintain and encourage production, and without attempting to make any profit out of the circumstances arising from the outbreak of war, the price for the 1939-40 season should be Id a lb butter in excess of last year. “The Government will make no concessions of any kind to the farmer,” Mr Sinclair added, “and the reason is now clear. A new principle is being enunciated in connection with the guaranteed price. Overseas realisations are the main factor in determining the price. When the scheme was first propounded, the statement was made repeatedly that the farmer would receive a price covering his production costs, irrespective of the amount realised overseas. Mention was made of a mysterious policy of ‘economic insulation,’ which would make this country impervious to overseas price fluctuations. In Chaotic Condition “This country’s finances are in a chaotic condition to-day, but there is no talk of insulation. It was just so much hot air—absolute rubbish.” (Applause). “With mounting deficits in the Dairy Industry Account,” said Mr Sinclair, “the Government could not pay the price to which the farmer was justly entitled. “The farmer’s reply is that his costs must come down, or his price must go up, because be must get a return which will cover his production costs. He infinitely prefers the first method, because he knows the dangers of an artificial system of price-fixing. The Government is attempting to make the guaranteed price an equalisation scheme, under which the farmer will get over a period of years only the market realisations of his produce, vyith no compensation whatever for the huge costs piled upon him by the reckless and extravagant policy of the Government.” (Loud applause). Remedy Suggested Mr Sinclair strongly deprecated the suggestions in some quarters concerning strikes and “direct action.” “The farmer of this country has a duty to-day,” he said, “which transcends any grievance he may have in connection with the guaranteed price. Other sections of the community can go on strike as often as they please, claiming that this is the only method by which they can get their grievances rectified; but there is a deep and abiding spirit of loyalty to the Homeland among the primary producers of this country, which will make them produce to the limit during the war. But the farmer cannot do the impossible. “Surely this Government can be made to realise that the resentment and indignation of the farmers all over New Zealand is no make-be-lieve, but arises from a feeling of bitterness due to their inability to get even the bare elements of justice. I ask you farmers of the Bay of Plenty to give your leaders one last last opportunity of placing the facts before the Government. If we fail again, we shall be forced into the position of coming back to you to ask for further instructions, but always let us proceed on constitutional lines.” Mr Sinclair received a long ovation at the close of his address.