When we were discussing this motion on the last occasion a number of things were said which one would have liked to have dealt with at the time and in the atmosphere created by the statements made on that particular occasion. I never like talking and controverting statements made by Senators when they are not present. I would much prefer that they were present so that they would know what exactly we think about the other side of the case. It is rather unfortunate that is not so in this case. In the matter of prices that farmers are to receive for their milk in the coming year we have reached really a critical stage. Many Senators, apparently, do not realise the gravity of the present situation in relation to the whole question of our milk production. Statements throughout the debate on the last occasion made on both sides of the House revealed, I think, rather considerable ignorance, to put it mildly, of what the factors are which are going to determine whether the farmers will continue in dairying for the purpose of producing milk or whether they will to a considerable extent get out of it. What rather depressed me in the case put forward by those who were in opposition to any increase in the price of butter was the failure of these Senators to meet the facts of the situation. No attempt, for instance, was made by any of the three speakers who appeared to oppose the motion to contest the case made by Senator MacCabe. If any particular member of this House who happened to be getting his living out of any type of industry, no matter what that may be, comes forward and proves that from one period to another the circumstances in this particular industry have considerably changed, inasmuch as the costs of production had considerably increased from what they had been a short time ago, I think he would be listened to with consideration, and an effort made to examine the statements made by him to see in how far they were in fact true. Some effort would be made to controvert or contradict these statements if it were found that there was a contrary case.
On the last occasion we had the statement of Senator MacCabe, who has considerable experience in this matter and should know very well what he is talking about. He is managing a creamery and is chairman of the federation of creameries, composed of at least a dozen small creameries, where people have come together to manage their business, to manufacture their butter to to sell it. A chairman of an institution like that should know the position, and he gave facts on the last occasion which were listened to, I presume, by people like Senator McGinley, Senator O'Connell and Senator O'Donovan. They could have asked themselves whether the statement made by Senator MacCabe, that costs of so many of the factors in the production of butter had increased, were true, or not. These things were passed over. That is not facing the facts. If these people who appear to speak for the consumers and only for the consumers in the narrow sense, make no effort to try to understand the other side of the case, I suggest that they are doing consumers the greatest disservice they possibly could do them. It is not physically possible for farmers, no matter what particular branch of industry they are engaged in, to continue under present conditions, when they are all the time faced with rising costs of production while being forced to sell their commodities at the old price. They will not do it.
Senator MacCabe pointed out, and it is a matter that should be carefully considered, that while in 1939 coal was 42/- a ton, in 1941 it was 90/-; salt cost 70/- in 1932, and in 1941 170/-; boxwood cost ? per box in 1929, and in 1941 2/10. All these increases are much more than 100 per cent., and you could go through the whole gamut of the farmer's cost of production to-day and find exactly the same thing. That is the situation which confronts you, and these are only a few of the figures. All these figures ought to be taken into account by Senators and by representative men everywhere before they can justifiably say that the line they are taking on this question of butter prices is a sound line. I argue that from the consumer's point of view it is a very short-sighted and very unwise line and that they will have cause to regret it.
I will give some other figures. In 1928 a Pierce mower cost £28 and in 1942 £34 5s.; hay forks that cost 3/6 in 1928 cost 5/- in 1942, and I do not think they can even be got at that price. Manure forks that cost 4/- now cost 6/6; buckets cost 3/3 in 1928 and if you could get one now for 10/- you would count yourself well off, as in fact they are not to be obtained. Plough breasts which cost 21/10 are now 27/- and all other plough parts have advanced by 25 per cent. There have been similar increases in the prices of swath-turners and steel rakes. Shoeing iron for horses which cost 32/8 per cwt. in 1938 now, if you can get it at all, would cost 65/- or 67/-, and ploughs that cost £7 10s. are now £9. When you get figures like those and see the prices which the farmer has to pay, how can people argue, as Senators did argue here, that the price which the farmer is getting is the highest price which can be paid to him? People who argue like that are either so blind that they will not see or they are deliberately standing in their own light and creating a situation whereby consumers in 12 months' time will not have anything like as much butter, at any price, as they have to-day.
There was another point made by Senator MacCabe on which Senator O'Connell joined issue. Senator MacCabe was arguing, and I think rightly so, that, from the point of view of labour costs, a great many farmers, due to the small prices for milk, were prepared to deal with the milk at home instead of sending it to creameries. They would use the milk on their farms, either by putting calves to suck the cows or handling it in some other way. Senators should have due regard to the dairying industry as we know it in the creamery areas as being the foundation of our live-stock industry. In fact, the Senator argued that counties in the West, like Roscommon, and elsewhere, were to a much greater extent the foundation on which our live stock was built. Here are some of the figures I have taken from those available to us, which give some picture of the ratio of cows to all live stock in some of those creamery areas, as against non-creamery areas like Roscommon. Before giving the figures, perhaps I may say that those of us who have been arguing for years that the price of butter is too low, and that dairying is the foundation of our live-stock industry, have never been understood properly by the non-creamery farmers in other parts, nor indeed do we seem to be understood at all by those responsible in our cities, judging by the case made by a couple of them here on the last occasion.
It will be agreed and accepted by this House that, if ever in the future we require imports for our sustenance which we cannot produce ourselves, we must have commodities available for exchange. If by some magician's wand we were able to make it possible to bring in the produce of another land for our people without producing anything here for export, we would be in a very happy state indeed, but I think that is an impossible proposition. Therefore, in view of the necessities of the future, we must try to develop an internal production which will make it possible for us to produce the essentials we require and at the same time make a surplus available to export for commodities which we cannot produce. I do not know whether or not that would be accepted as essential or as good national economy. There is not much we can produce in either town or country and have in abundance so that we may have some surplus for export: the only thing I can see which we could make available in that way is live stock. I cannot see any effort being made by people in towns or cities to provide an abundance of any commodities which would leave something for export. In the end, we have to fall back on the farmers, as in every other crisis.
If we accept that as the position confronting us, we must look around and see what we can provide for export. I see nothing to take the place of our live stock and I do not think Ministers see anything else. It is quite clear that the Minister for Agriculture has made up his mind that live stock is essential so that we may have something to exchange for commodities we need.
You cannot get calves or two or three-year old cattle without cows. And if you cannot get them you will not have the produce to exchange for petrol, cotton, steel or anything else we require to import which is not native to our soil or under it. Therefore, common sense dictates that we should set our faces towards a policy which will provide something to export by way of exchange. I know people will argue about this. Senator McGinley on the last occasion urged that we were stressing to too great a degree the importance of our cattle industry, and that we should concentrate on wheat.