N.Z. FARMERS’ UNION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 99, 21 December 1912, Page 2

N.Z. FARMERS’ UNION.

TARANAKI PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE. Tlie monthly meeting- of the Taranaki Provincial Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union was held at Hawera yesterday. Present: Messrs. J. Davidson (president), R. Lambie, J. Thomson, J. Swindlehurst, F. J. Virgin, S. Forsyth, and R. Dunn. Apologies for absence were received from Messrs. Washer, Willis and Marfell. Duty on Boots and Hides. Mr, A. Allhusen wrote stating that he had noticed that the Bootmakers’ Union in Wellington had recently passed a resolution proposing that, instead of an increased duty on boots and shoos, an export duty should be placed on hides. This movement, he thought, the farmers should strongly oppose. The outside market governed the price of hides, and, of course, any rise in value hits the American or Canadian manufacturer just as much as the local one. The writer failed to see why the farmer should be picked out of the community to stand the cost of enabling the New Zealand boot manufacturers to make a large profit or supply the whole community with slightly cheaper footwear. The duty on footwear is already pretty high, and it seemed to him that it the duty, plus freight for manufactured articles to New Zealand, is not sufficient protection to the New Zealand maker, lie migiit as well drop out of the business. Mr. Allhusen hoped the executive would take the matter up. Mr. Lambie thought the matter was one that the executive should take some action ki. New Zealand produced the best hides in the world, they had good means to manufacture, and there was no reason why they could not produce as geod an article as the imported one. it seemed absurd that chey had to send their hides Home, have them manufactured, sent out again, pay freight both ways, and an import oucy oi 2i> per cent., and then ./ut manufacturers could not compete.

With vile■ advantages they had tney uugiit to make better leather and boots than Che imported. He suggested asking the manufacturers why they could not do it.

Mr. Forsyth suggested asking the Government to protect the farmers in tlie direction of opposing any movement to put an export duty on hides or any otiier primary product. Mr. Dunh moved: “That this executive is strongly opposed to any export duty being placed on hides, or any other primary product, and that a copy of Mr. Allhusen’s letter be sent to the Prime Minister and the Dominion Executive of the Union.” The motion was seconded and carried. Mutual Fire insurance. The following letter, which was sent to Dr. Newman, M.P., by the Prime Minister, was received: “With reference to your letters of the 23rd September and Ist November, in regard to the request of the Farmers’ Union for an extension of the Mutual Fire Insurance Act to enable Hie Association to undertake accident insurance business, I have to say that it was not possible to introduce legislation on these, lines during the session yvhich has just yoneluded. The matter will bo reconsidered during the, ryecss so that the Government may decide whether legislation on this subject could be introduced next session.—(Signed) W. F. Massey.” It was resolved: “That the executive is pleased to see that the Government is moving in the direction of legislation to empower Farmers’ Mutual Fire Associations to do .accident business, and strongly hopes that it will take practical' shape," and That'‘the/ I M.IV.s for Taranaki bo asked to support such legislation.” Land and income Tax. The legislation in reference tp Iqnd and inscome taxation' last session,’ as bearing on a proposal of the Union, came up.for discussion. The proposal originated in the Opunake branch of the union, and lias been before the Provincial Conference and the Dominion Conference. In speaking to the subject*Mr. Lambie said that any attempt to amend the present system of taxation would not carry out the principle of the resolu - tion. The difficulty was in trying to separate the improved from the unimproved value. lor example, in assessing the improved value of land, what value would they put on the freezer, on the co-operative dairy company, on the steam transit, on the people who consumed their produce, and on the original price they paid for their land ? There was a great difference between town land and farm land, and the same principle of taxing should not be applied. Mr. Davidson said it would be a difficult matter for any one to get at the improvements he had done for the last thirty years. He had made a great many improvements, and now he had to pay taxes on an excessive unimproved value. Mr Dunn thought that farmers were better treated under the new Act. They were credited with their responsibility for loans, and improvements as fur as they could see. Ha would suggest. that the whole matter be referred to tbe annual conference. Mr. Virgin said he was not able t see eye to eye with those who had spoken. His experience was that as farmers they were not overtaxed, they should look at it fairly and squarely. He asked them; (1) Is the land tax that they pay a heavy burden? (2) Has Lie value of land been decreased on account of the land tax? (3) Do we, as farmers, wish .to revert to the old property tax in place of the present system ? Mr. Thomson was in favour of the resolution, and said they were indebted to the Opunake branch for what it had done in the matter. The matter was referred to the Dominion Conference with a request to go fully into the question.