Tariff And The Farmer

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 127, 23 February 1938, Page 13

Tariff And The Farmer

Sir, —Tlie New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation makes a sorry show in its confused explanations and refusal to answer the facts stated in my previous letters. My dispute is not over the value of, our manufacturing industries., I stated'in my first letter that I was a farmer and one .who has given a considerable amount of assistance to the protection of our industries, and I have been in a position where I could do so. The dispute between myself and the Manufacturers’ Federation is over what I allege to be the gross misrepresentation of the facts as set out by the federation in its public statement throughout the Dominion and also published in -.your columns. I asked, “Did Sir Alfred Ransom state the sum mentioned of over £14,000,000 was an ‘annual’ payment, as stated by the federation”? I am entitled to an answer to that. Whatever the reply is, it does not alter the facts as deijlt with by me. The federation’s reply to my accusation of its “gross misrepresentation of the-tacts” is “an official statement by the Acting-Prime Minister of the day on' a question of fact can hardly be called a cross inaccuracy.” The federation knows perfectly well that the Minister’s statement was unfairly used by it. The Minister was not making a comparison between the farmers and the manufacturers, or he would have put oil the opposite side the benefits of the exchange to the manufacturers, the millions they annually „get through the tariff, the cost of their workers wlm were thrown upon the unemployment fund, and all the reductions in interest and other remissions.

That, however, is not the dispute. The question is whether the amount stated and quoted by the Manufacturers’ Federation is an accurate statement, and what steps they took to test its accuracy

before broadcasting it throughout the Dominion. They did nothing. Upon the accuracy of this statement or otherwise, rests the conclusion that they reached and published that “It is well ■ known that —putting- the position in plain terms —the farmer has been the pampered child of a country which everyone admits.” etc., and that he. the fanner, “merely draws attention to the fact that he himself'is the petted boy of the family” who, they allege, has been paid over £14,000,000 annually. I proved that the federation's statement that “the farmer had received £9,000,000 annually” through the Government was a wrong calculation, anfi showed that it should have been £5,224.500, and this was a gross figure, not a net figure, as indicated. . . I proved that the figures quoted of a “reduction of £1,000,000 in land tax” annually to the farmer, when the total amount paid in land tax by town and country was £500.000 annually, could not be bluffed through. But the federation does not admit its, guilt nor does it attempt to justify its figures. It does not admit that the most of the other figures quoted apply to town and country alike. If the manufacturers want the goodwill of the farmer, .then it cannot be rained by these methods. The federation makes no reference to my statement that it supports the policy of a “compensated price” for local industry. That sums up its whole policy, as with every increase in the cost of wages, materials, etc., the manufacturers ask for increased protection to compensate them. Do they agree that the farmer should get compensation when his costs make his production unprofitable?—l am, etc.. 1 _ FARMER. Wellington, February 22.