PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20950, 1 November 1939, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION

POSITION OF FARMERS

FARMERS AND PRODUCTION

POSTERITY’S INHERITANCE

NEW ZEALAND FINANCE

As expressed bj correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but fur whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It Is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule Is complied with, their letters will not appear.

(To the Editor) Sir, —The Kon. P. C. Webb imagines crime would disappear under a better social order. Well, there is one “crime” that he and those associated with him will need to avoid because they will be entirely responsible, and that is that our boys who are leaving our shores to assist in preserving freedom all over the world, as -well as our own. shall not return home to find their own freedom under the lock and key of waradvanced socialism. This indeed would be crime of the first magnitude and for which no living conditions would be in any way responsible. The position of* the farmers in New Zealand is now becoming a very serious question for them. They are told in effect that they must produce the exports necessary to maintain the standard of living demanded by industrial unionists at such a figure that holds them well down at the lower level. Our Members of Parliament, especially those in Cabinet, profess to know infinitely more about the possibilities with no experience than those who have spent a lifetime in the business.

Farmers must find some way of holding up their end of the stick, not so much from the point of view of the individual farmer’s welfare but principally from the national standpoint. If we allow our only exportable products to decrease in quantity, being at present such a small community we shall soon find ourselves not only concerned about a standard of living, but about any living at all other than what we can provide by purely internal effort.

I do not know what to expect when at the head we have an intellect that compares when replying to Mr Goodfellow the spending power of the workers over the last four years with that of the slump years. Surely the biggest fool in New Zealand would know the difference was caused by the scattering of over ten millions a year of hard-earned savings of others into the hands of the wage-earners (and others) to squander. Let Mr Savage look ahead four years and tell us what is going to happen. However, what he mignt say would be of little value, seeing the awful mess we are now in while he still calls put, “1 won’t let you down.” One wonders how much lower we must get before he realises we are at the bottom.—l am, etc., TUNA. Hamilton, October 31.

. (To the Editor) Sir, —Mr C. J. Barnes goes into a state of dithyrambic exaltation when he draws a wonderful and fanciful picture of the heritage to be left to future generations by a beneficent Labour Government. These are phantasms. I ask him to turn his attention to facts, namely, the glorious heritage to which Labour succeeded in 1935, a heritage the result of a century’s energy, enterprise, thrift and hard work; a heritage that in four short years Labour has brought to ruin. Mr Barnes cannot deny that we had railways, roads, wharves, public buildings, power plants, etc., at our service long before Labour came into power, which would have gone to posterity without the intervention of Labour. Labour says that former Governments are responsible for the national debt, and alleges they have nothing to show for it. I ask Mr Barnes, and any others who may give credit to this nonsense, to obtain a copy of the Official Year Book for 1939, and look up page 499, where they will see a table of the assets previous Governments can show for their loan money. The whole table is too long to give in full, but I give a few of the chief items, in millions of pounds: Railways, 64; hydro-elec-tric schemes, 13; post and telegraph, 14; public buildings, 14; roads and highways, 31; State advances, 40; land settlement and improvement, 24; and numerous lesser items. That was the so-called undeveloped heritage that Labour took over; the heritage it has grievously mismanaged, say what its supporters like. In today’s paper I read that the per capita Commonwealth and State taxation in Australia is £l7 19s 7d. This year the per capita taxation in New Zealand is about £32—roughly, 77 per cent more than Australia’s, and 50 per cent more than the heavy rearmament taxation in Britain. Labour New Zealand is the highest taxed country in the world, except Germany, and people are beginning to ask what there is to show for it. These are all proven facts. I know that followers of the Labour Party detest facts, so I love to give them a few now and then. In this year’s public works estimates is an item for the erection at ; Milford Sound of an hostel at a cost j of £200.000. Is it white elephants like that Labour wants to hand | down to posterity? I quoted a Scottish prayer in my I first letter, and will finish my second with another:

“O wad some power the giftie gie us To see oorsels as ithers see us.”—l A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahia, October 30.

I wish to point out to farmers:— (1) Do a fair day’s work on the farm; (2) do less growling; (3) think of the price you foolishly paid for a £2O farm when its value was quoted at £7O and you bought it; (4) be thankful you have a good guaranteed price and are not at the mercy of the open market; (5) get your representative, Liberal, Opposition or Government, to back you up and see all land values are reproductive, not speculative; (6) learn to love the townfolks. or tolerate them. They bring many pounds to your pocket, and I am afraid you farmers would shrink right up if you had to do four hours watching intricate machines, even at 40 hours a week.—l am, etc., FARMER & EX-FACTORY MGR., AND HAPPY. Frankton, October 30.

(To the Editor) Sir, —The amended Act of the Reserve Bank is quite a small document. There is now absolute power devolved upon the shoulders of the Minister of Finance. It remains to be seen whether that power is going to be used for the benefit of New Zealand, or whether the Minister and his advisers are in a position to carry out the revised policy of economics. If the authority is in the hands of those who are ignorant of how to deal with the matter, then the state of this country will be infinitely worse than hitherto. Further, what difficulties are there in the way to stop a reduction in our taxation?— I am, etc., ATLAS. Hamilton, October 31. THIS LIBERTY? (To the Editor) Sir, —The Minister of Finance has been confirming the remarks of Archbishop Averill relative to liberty. Why is it that the facts of a Labour administration do not bear out the sentiments expressed by its Ministers? We are not permitted to import certain goods; we are not allowed to purchase goods as and when we require them; we notice appointments of controllers of all sections of industry. Why? Yet the Labour Party talks about our heritage of liberty. A more glaring example is the treatment meted out to the large number of “B” radio stations now departed. The tragic part of the business is that the community at large never lifts its voice in protest. We compare a large tract of land in Central Europe under similar conditions; are we much better off than they?—l am, etc., GLASS HOUSE. Hamilton. October 31.

(To the Editor) Sir, —In reply to the much-used quotation that farmers want at least one penny pe lb above the guaranteed price, and this before the Government had the final figures from the British Government, it seems to the writer to be the old parrot cry which has been a stock one since I first managed a private butter factory in 1889, just 50 years ago on June 22 last. The price paid to suppliers vas then 2Jd a gallon, with no test for butterfat; nor was a set of scales on the receiving stage. The milk was measured by a graduated stick—2o gallons on one side and 25 on the other. The growl was in evidence then as now: they wanted id a gallon more.

Milled butter was also worked up in this factory and the price was 4d a pound. Still there was the sanTe grouse: they ought to have at least t»d net.

In these days of early industry, though, the price of land in the Kaupokonui block ranged from £3 an acre for standing bush to £lB and £2O an acre hi Manaia and the South Taranaki plains in general. My contention is that the farmer is the one who should be the last to complain, and the Governments of 1914-1918 are the only people who have themselves to blame if the guaranteed price is not enough to covei costs.

I can hear the whole lot saying, “Rot!” It is not rot, sir; it is plain, unalloyed truth. Did not the then Government allow big estates to be cut up into 50-100-acre farms, often without a chance in 1000 of getting adequate water for stock, and this land, worth £4 to £lO as a sheep or grazing farm, sold at £3O to £7O an acre according to locality plus the salesmanship of the land agent and the folly of the Government in allowing the sale at a price which could never be reproductive. This was carried further after the war, as we well know in the instance ! of the Government purchasing for returned soldiers. Poor devils, after giving four years of service, to be saddled with a millstone for life! Here and here alone is the basic cause of the farmer’s inability to pay his way—that is if he is a farmer. Of course we have in this district quite a number of so-called farmers. You have only to take note of the number of days they are in town (the so-called farmers) to get an indication of the hours they work—6o to 75 a week. I challenge the average farmer of today to prove that although seven days a week are worked, he averages more than 45 hours a week. They spend too much in transport and in town. I might say we or I don’t want the old happy hard times to be visited on the present or prospective farmer. Our factory days were often 70 to 80 hours a week on account of the poor condition of milk supplied. What factory manager gets three 900-gal-lon vats to work today with five men plus the manager, and how many factory hands of today see three vats when cut rise clean up so that the whey had to be run and the curd cooked in water, or nearly so? I put a big query to this, as this means a long chedder—and long working hours.