Basis of Control

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 190, 10 May 1934, Page 14

Basis of Control

Sir, —Mr. Latham’s letter of April 23 says the eight points I mentioned regarding control of production are not unanswerable. He does not comment on any of them, however, but is satisfied to call it “theoretical tosh.” Yet every one of them is supported by “plain, facts.” In Friday’s cable news from Canada it is announced that owing to drought there is likely to be a big shortage in grain crops. We will see what happens in the next few months.

Your correspondent is evidently satisfied to support the idea of maintaining the present high prices of land and the high prices of goods, a mistaken idea that has been frequently pointed out in the leading dailies throughout New Zealand. The revaluation of land to its proper relation to prices, to allow of production being carried on on a profitable basis, is absolutely essential to the re-establish-ment of New Zealand. Reform of the land policy, revaluation and the prohibiting of increased values being appropriated by individuals should be the basis of land reform, and reform of the financial system (as I previously stated.), which has already been commenced by the establishment of the Central Bank, is the first essential to a return to prosperity. In his previous letter your correspondent stated: “I trust the Home Government in the coming years will restrict the imports of New Zealand butter to 45,000 tons, the excess over 1928.” This is now 1934; would it not be better to go back to 1914, when everything was normal before the outbreak of the war? If this was done, for the benefit of all the

people of New Zealand, perhaps it would be better than figuring on the peak year of 1928. That 45,000 tons of butter, taking three gallons of milk as the basis for lib. of butterfat, would represent 100,800,0001 b. of butter, or 302,400,000 gallons of milk. What number of cows would require td be slaughtered and how many dairy-farmers and dairy factories would be ruined in the process? _ After examination of all possibilities of local consumption, overseas markets and new avenues for trade has been made it may be necessary to resort to some type of planned production, and if the unfortunate dairy-farmers have been so badly advised by the Government leaders, by being advised to produce more, and not lees, as stated by Mr. Latham, let us hope they will not be subjected to the brutally callous idea of allowing the slump to right itself at their expense, and while we do not want bolstering and audsidising, as occurred with the 25 per cent, exchange. Without a means test, I believe the people of New Zealand is prepared' to lielp preserve the dairy industry, where the need of assistance is real, but what we do want to avoid is taxing the people, many being worse off than those receiving the subsidy, to pay a bonus where it is not required or needed, and should not be given. The Government hns lost the confidence of the people by the grossly unfair distribution of the 25 per cent, exchange subsidy, the paying of a building subsidy without proper consideration of the financial standing of those receiving the greatest share, rhe handling of the unemployed finds causing protests from one end of New Zealand to the other, and the anomalies and injustice of the income and land tax as permittee! to be administered favouring the wealthy producers. Mr. Latham deserves every credit for foreseeing the want of machine-guns m the late war, but to start controlling dairy production in the figures given above would probably make as many casualties in the ranks of the dairy-farm-ers as the machine-guns did in the enemy ranks in the war. If control must come, let It be in a carefully planned, and studied way, and let the revaluation of land and mortgages be the basis of the plans.-! am, etc. May 7.