Crop farmers seek monetary help

Press, 18 April 1978, Page 26

Crop farmers seek monetary help

Cropping farmers also need an injection of cash, according to the chairman of the agriculture section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers (Mr K. M. Wells). Addressing a meeting of the section he said that ever-increasing costs were seriously affecting all sections of the industry, and for the agricultural farmer the costs of machinery replacement, repairs and maintenance had reached astronomic levels. Rates, cartage and weed control costs were moving in the same direction and with poor crop yields in the last season many farmers’ incomes would be down by 50 per cent, leaving nothing for reinvestment. With farmers now facing the high costs of planting next season’s crops, the outlook was anything but bright. The Government grant towards the cost of feed grain would be welcomed by many farmers but Mr Wells said he was not fully in favour of this method of relief.

The grant had depressed the prices or other stock feeds — hay and grazing — although they might be limited in quantity. So for the farmer who had had the initiative to grow free (non-contracted) grain it was a bitter blow and the hope of rewards for his efforts had been slashed. “In 1971-72 we had a poor grain harvest and like many others that year

I headed per acre 18 bushels of oats, 17 bushels of peas and 30 bushels of barley. Who came to the assistance of the grain grower?” he asked.

Mr Wells said that a fair and reasonable method of relief would have been a stock unit grant to maintain capital stock on farms. Feed grain prices would have found their own level in competition with other stock feeds. This would have been reasonably simple to administer and the taxation system would have taken care of any case where a grant was not warranted. For the sheep farmer who sold his stock at recent sales at modest prices a grain feed grant was of not much help, but it was different for the buyer of the stock. Mr Wells urged that to improve feed supplies and help fill hay barns next year a grant must be sought towards the use of nitrogenous fertiliser. If such i a grant were paid in the immediate future it could well reduce the amount of subsidised grain needed.

Mr Wells said that the new road transport tax system was going to be a serious blow to many farmers. Carriers were looking for further increases in their rates, which would total 20 per cent in a year. Rural dwellers would have to pay more for everything they bought because rural

business would be affected. The user-pays principle, on which the new regulations were based, looked sound at first sight, but when a hard look was taken at it it was seen that the farmer was in fact paying twice. Farmers paid rates to local counties and in his country some 57 per cent of all rates collected were spent on roading, Mr Wells said. They were also obliged by law to keep the roadsides in good condition. In 1971, a special fuel tax had been imposed to assist local bodies. Road carriers had been exempted from this tax but not farmers, so they paid again. Could, therefore, farmers expect to see a greater portion of the hubodometer tax spent on their roads to upgrade them or could they expect a reduction in their rates?

After their last meeting, Mr Wells said, he had been quoted as saying that even though the cost of machinery was high farmers in Canterbury should diversify more. What he did say was that the high costs of machinery were restricting farmers from diversifying and they should receive some encouragement to do so.

The considerable outlay on machinery and the time between the initial expense and the cash return had a very serious restricting effect.