THREE VITAL ISSUES FACED BY ALL FARMERS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22887, 5 March 1949, Page 8

THREE VITAL ISSUES FACED BY ALL FARMERS

Whether the confiscation of land was a correct term to apply to the methods employed by the Government to secure holdings for rehabilitation purposes was debated briefly at a meeting of farmers in the Bon Accord rooms last night to listen to an address by the Dominion president of Federated Farmers, Mr. W. N. Perry.

The guest speaker gave his views on that subject, and also on the questions of stabilisation and subsidies, later inviting discussion. It was stated that his views coincided with those of the meeting.

“The confiscation of land is a burning question wherever you may go,” said Mr. Perry. “We have at head office a lands committee set up to .watch the position and to protect farmers whose land is required for the settling of returned servicemen. “It is a National Job” “I do not wish it thought that the farmer is not prepared to do what he can to help the returned man, but I feel that it is a national job to rehabilitate the soldier and not that of one section of the community.” He explained that the grocer and the draper or the accountant and the chemist did not have to give way to the returned serviceman. They were not put out of business. It was only the farmer. “We will have to tackle the Government in no uncertain terms. While thousands of acres of Crown lands are in a partially developed or developed state and are available they leave them alone and take land from the farmer who has brought his land through from an undeveloped section to a high state

of production. “The Government wants increased production. They take land from an efficient fanner who has brought it up to a high pitch of production and hand it over to people who are natually not so efficient. It does not make sense. “We know friends of the Government who are holding land and have not been asked to part up with some of it. Those who have other sources of income should be the first to have land taken. The efficient farmer should be left alone. W’ant Backing to Limit “What we want is an expression of opinion,” Mr. Perry said. “If action is decided upon we want to know that we have the backing of the farmers. We have been told at meetings that we are not sufficiently militant. It was quite a pleasant change the other evening to be told that we were too militant. If we take action we want the body of farmers to back us to the limit. Until I know the feeling of farmers I will not be prepared to go to any great length in the taking of direct or drastic action.”

Ilis second point was stabilisation, which, he said, involved an agreement between the Farmers’ Union and the Government. Stabilisation did not rest squarely on all sections of the community. The new demand for a blanket increase in wages amounting to £2 would mean another rise in cosits and it would be necessary to have another “close look at our stabilisation agreement,” and decide whether to repudiate it or not.

“It is both ethically and morally wrong that one section of the community should be asked to subsidise all other sections of the community and we intend to press our point with the utmost vigour,” he said on the question of the subsidies on hides, pelts, calfskins and tallow. “Going To Do Our Utmost” “Those are three issues with which we are faced and I think they are very vital,” he continued. “We are doing our utmost to put the case to the Government to see if we cannot get redress on these vital issues.” Mr. S. D. Reeves asked if it was not a fact that the stabilisation agreement had a great bearing on the cuestion of subsidies.

Mr. Perry said there had been a meeting with the Dairy Commission, the Meat Board and the Bobby Calf Pool and it had been agreed to take legal advice as to whether the Government had broken the agreement. Even if the Government had broken it that did not mean that it could be repudiated, It was necessary to press the matter further. Mr. A. P. O’Shea, general secretary, drew attention to the fact that the farmer selling out was held to the 1942 level in the face of furincreases in costs. “The position is going to be iniquitous and every province should get up and bark about it and keep barking,” said Mr. O’Shea. Stabilisation was referred to as rank injustice on the farmer by Mr. O. T. Williams. Mr. A. C. Wood said that production could not be maintained when some of the farms taken were cut up for rehabilitation purposes. Farmers should be behind the federation in that matter, he said. He moved that this meeting support Mr. Perry in any action taken in regard to the matter of the confiscation of land for the settling of returned soldiers, while vast areas of partially developed or developed Crown land’s were available.

Mr. C. H. Cooper said he felt that confiscation was a drastic term. He did not know of any direct confiscation in this area.

Possibly a Strong Term

“Possibly confiscation is rather a strong term, but that is how I view it when they take land from a farmer at 1942 values and are paying him in 1949 currency,” said Mr. Perry. , “The money has been very seriously inflated since 1942 and if the new increase is granted on the blanket issue it will be even more unfair. It will mean no more production. There will be too much money chasing too few goods. You could use the term ‘taking over the land rather than confiscation if you chose’.” Mr. C. H. Williams: It is a matter of penalising the individual and applies equally in the case of subsidies. The onus rests on the community and not on the individual. Taking land at a value lower than the true value is not confiscation.

Mr B. J. Holdsworth: It is straightout daylight robbery. Mr. Wood, who withdrew his motion, said it might be possible to have some land made available for men prepared to take it over in an unimproved state. There were probably thousands of men who would prefer that. Mr. 11. D. C. Lange spoke of the

delays between the acquisition of the iaiul and the time the boys took it over finally. Was it that the prices being received were too good and the Government was reluctant (o hand over? The chairman, Mr. S. McGuinness, said he thought the departments concerned had a problem on their hands in the matter of shortage of materials.