The Akaroa Mail FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1924 TOWN V. COUNTRY.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume XCIV, Issue 5184, 25 April 1924, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1924 TOWN V. COUNTRY.

In its April number the New Zealand Dairyman attacks one of the most controversial subjects of the day, Town versus Country. The supporters of this controversy mainfain that the present Government favours the farmers at the expense of the rest of the community. The " Dairyman" quotes >the "Evening Post" as follows :—

"The "Evening Post," a paper most' careful and cautious in its statements says that " there fs a feeling abroad, growing stronger day by day, that the present Government is of the farmers, by the farmers, for the farmers the 'time. . . In order to qualify this statement, it proceeds to enumerate the financial liability assumed by* the Government ■under the Meat Export Control. Act, the paj'ment bf some thousands of pounds under a guarantee to the fruitgrowers, and the- " deplorable embargo" on flour and wheat, etc. In addition to all these favours, the ''Evening Post" has a special grievance against the remission of the farmers' income tax. Although this paper to a certain extent professes to merely act as the echo of vox populi, there is no doubt that the '"Evening Post," in common with many other critics, looks upon the 1 emission of the farmers'' income tax as a piece of class legislation, unsound in principle and unjust in its application. However, let us first investigate the minor items complained of.

With regard to the financial liability assumed under the Meat Export Control Act, we know by now that the Government guarantee was neither necessary nor essential. There is a handle to this guarantee which makes it cumbersome and .unwieldy. -The Government has so far not been asked to contribute a single nenny towards the Meat Board's finances, and probably never will be.

As to the few thousand pounds spent in order to keep alive a struggling fruit industry by endeavouring to establish an export trade, this item is almost too insignificant to mention. Although a direct payment, the Government has made numberless indirect concessions to secondary industries, involving a far greater outlay for less worthy objects. The fruitgrowers of New Zealand have converted thousands of acres of otherwise useless land, bearing. nothing but stunted manuka, into gardens and orchards, and their infant industry which is still struggling in swaddling clothes, deserves every encouragement and assistance from Government and people.

| With regard to the duty on wheat : and flour in order to protect the | New Zealand wheatgrowers, there is | a more far-reaching- principle at ! stake than the average man in the 1 street may recognise. Nor is the problem confined to New Zealand 'alone, for the arable farmer through-! ■ out 1 he world is faccd to-day withl jthe same perplexing- problems. The' geographical position of New Zea-. !

land makes it imperative that sufficient wheat should be grown in the Dominion in order to ensure, during a severe shipping crisis or period of war, the most essential item of our diet, namely, our daily bread. But, apart from this principle, what difference is there in protecting the wheatgrowe.r, the boot manufacturer, the coachbuilder, the jeweller t the tanner, the woollen mills, or the iron founder? A tariff in all these cases provides revenue and protection, the only difference being that the wheatgrower is s farmer, and apparently for that rea--1 son, in accordance with popular belief, not entitled to protection." The " Dairyman" makes a verj clear case for the remission of '• the land tax on primary producers in addition to the income tax. In the first case the paper claims that as the primary produce represents 9a per cent, of the created wealth of the country the industry is helped very inadequately by the Government. Also the land tax was brought in as a war measure with the promise that it would he redeemed when war ended, whereas it has been retained for six years after the" war, When the slump was on, nothing was said and.the farmer continued -paying his two taxes. Now that the prices have risen immediately the out cry is raised that the farmers, af'e being favoured. The article concludes as follows: — "We can see the writing on the wall, and are convinced, that every effort will be made to put the primary producers back on the income tax list. Whether these efforts will succeed depends largely on the organised efforts of the farmers themselves. , But if they should succeed, the primary producers must make every endeavour to have an unsound unjust, and inequitable land tax either wiped olf the slate entirely or at least brought back to the 191416 basis. Under no condition should the industry be burdened with both land and income tax."