The Press TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1943. Primary Production

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24076, 12 October 1943, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1943. Primary Production

The agricultural and pastoral production figures for 1942-43, presented in the latest issue of the Abstract of Statistics, tell an alarmingly plain story, A summary review on the Farm and Station page on Saturday directed attention to such outstanding facts as the decline in 16 out of 26 classes of crops and livestock and in the total acreage to which fertiliser or lime has been applied, or both. For example, there have been heavy falls in oats, barley, seed, and fodder crops; the total of dairy cows and heifers, two years old and more, is down by 40,000, that of heifers under two years, intended for dairying, by 66,000, or almost 10 per cent.; the total of steers and bulls of all ages is down by 73,000, or 8 per cent.; and there are 67,000, or 12 per cent., fewer pigs under one year, and 77,000,' or 11 per cent, fewer pigs in total. Works killings of sheep and lambs were down by 1,000,000 last season; and the Minister of Agriculture let it be known that a considerable fall in dairy output was to be expected—because of the weather. These facts and figures are disturbing. New Zealand is under call from Britain for the utmost possible production, with an assurance that shipping can and will be provided for every ton of food available. Reciprocal aid supply contracts to United States forces have reached huge figures. The new South Pacific supply area arrangements appear to extend New Zealand’s responsibilities. It has for some time been an anxious question, how producers are to be enabled to meet the demand on them. .None has asked the question, more anxiously , than the producers themselves, giving plain reasons for their anxiety. The Government has said too little by way of plain answeri far too much in self-congratulation; The Abstract of Statistics now puts the, question again. The Government will carry its evasiveness to an inconceivable length, if it does not respond, fully and candidly. The country wants the truth.

There is another aspect of the matter. During the General Election campaign, the Hon. A. McLagan, Minister of National Service, repeatedly used certain hand-picked figures to support his argument that manpower could not have been muddled, or the figures would not look so brave. As was pointed out here, Mr McLagan compared years which it was irrelevant to compare and consistently used inflated value figures instead of volume figures. The volume indexes for 1940-41 and 1941-42, for example, were available, They show a fall in farm production and in farm and factory production combined. Mr. McLagan did not use them. If he had really wanted to know how production was moving and to let the people know, he could have come further up to date. Figures in preparation for an issue of the Abstract aX the end of the month, it may confidently be assumed, could have been supplied to the Minister a week sooner. Mr McLagan, however, was not alone in hand-picking his figures and sparing himself the trouble of getting the latest and most significant ones. The Prime Minister dwelt with artless wonder on the fertiliser figures: 2,600,000 acres treated in 1935; 4,000,000 acres in 1942—meaning, presumably, 194142. Wonder properly arises only over the Prime Minister’s choice of 1935. But the wonder vanishes when it is observed that, if he had compared 1941-42 with 1940-41, he would have revealed a fall of 437,000 acres. And if he had asked for an early note of the figures from the Statistician’s Office, he would have been able to reveal a further fall, :o 1942-43, of 742,000 acres. Misleading figures helped Mr Fraser, and he Used them; significant figures would have told against him, and he chose not to use them. This may be politics, according to one conception of politics; but the issues involved were those of the people’s cause and the people’s effort in it.