“SATAN ON SIN”

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 3 January 1931, Page 13

“SATAN ON SIN”

A DRASTIC REMEDY

FARMERS AND FAVOURS

In reply to a recent utterance by the president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, the New Zealand Manufacturers ’ Association writes to the “Evening Post” (Wellington). Even a community that is frequently forced to listen to Satan reproving sin must have been somewhat- staggered by Mr. President Poison’s attack on Protection at the farmers’ rally at Hawera. Even the knowledge of the bread tax did not prevent the leader of the Farmers’ Union from demanding fiercely the removal of duties on manufactured goods. And his just wrath against the manufacturer was not in the least modified by the preceding suggestion of another speaker that “every- argument in favour of protection of wheatgrowers applied to dairy farmers.” The burglar who, being caught with the goods, offers himself as King’s evidence, is at least candid in liis hypocrisy. Mr. Poison’s case is of parallel audacity, hut the candour is lacking.

THE VOICE OF THE PHARISEE.

“As obviously all sections of the community could not receive favoured treatment,” said Mr. Poison, “then none should x-eceive it.” It is hard to believe that this fearless exponent of “favour to none, justice to all” is the- spokesman of an industry foi- which, ovei- many years, the railways carried commodities free or at concession rates. An industry to which expensive State Departments have rendered unpaid service. An industry which —with a voting strength magnified by the ‘‘2B per cent, quota” provision—lias constrained politicians to construct- many rural branch railways (“developmental”) the capital of which is lost forever. An industry, moreover, some branches of which have enjoyed this abhorred tariff protection, while others have been supported by export aids - like State-guaranteed returns.

With his pockets lined with the fruits of all this sectionalism, does it become the farmer to raise, amid the present general distress, the issue of sectional favour ?

It may be, of course, that the fruits of “favoured treatment” are not all in the farmers’ pockets. It may be that some farmers’ pockets are empty. This will depend in large measure on how and when the farmer bought his farm. But if the prosperity of the past is not in the farmer’s pocket, it is in the farm capital account. Past and recent prosperity that has been absorbed in the price of the land is now the farmer’s burden. Inflation of land values is almost. certainly the greatest of the loads the farmer carries. If that is not so, what do “members of the Manawatu Branch of the Dairy Farmers’ Union” mean when they say (vide daily Press of December 19) that “a reduction of interest rates would be of much greater benefit than a reduction in wages?” And why the demand for a farm moratorium if the nlnd is not capitalised beyond its productive value ?

INFLATION AND INEFFICIENCY

Because the prosperity of farmers f has become congealed in over-priced farm land, farmers ask sectionally for the “favour” of a legislated protection from interest and while they are putting this extreme and sectional demand to the Government, the president of the Farmers’ Union calls for a discontinuance of everybody vise's favours —in the name of consistency. Quite recently Sir Harold Beauchamp has reminded the public that “cheap money and liberal facilities afforded by the Advances +o Settlers’ Department” and by other Departments and by various lenders “were chiefly responsible for inflating land } Values.” He recalls that “in some cases dairy lands sold as high as £l4O an acre, and country estimated to carry two sheep to the acre frequently changed hands, at £3O pei- acre.'’ Hence the inability of farmers to face present prices, although Sir Harold remembers that as recently as 1903 the then farmers had to produce wool “selling in London as Jew as 4 3-Bd.” After many favoured years, the farmers now suffer from an inflation, for which cheap money is “chiefly responsible.” Yet they do not ask for a discontinuance of cheap money. They ask rather that it he made cheaper by legislative .action. Nowhere in New Zealand’s protected secondary industries is there an inflation even remotely comparable with tlie inflation of farm land. Why, then, should the ■fanner demand no more tariff, but plenty .more moratorium? “No more tariff” is not strictly correct. Tlie cry is for no more tariff except such tariffs as farm industry demands.

Surely it is clear that if selfish sectionalism is abroad, it centres in s needles like that of Mr Poison at Hawera, combined with fanner-partici-pation in the benefits that Mr Poison denounces, and with farmer demands for a. moratorium which Mr Poison mildly opposes, but which lie would not dare to vote against if it appeared as a Government Bill in Parliament.

WHAT ABOUT “EQUALITY OF

SACRIFICE” ?

Is the Hawera speech the best contribution Mr Poison can make to a common state of depression, and to a situation which calls for co-operative courage and “equality of sacrifice”? Ts it helpful that the farmer should cut at everybody’s costs except his oiyii overhead, should be anxious to withdraw all tariffs and “favours” except those he himself enjoys, and should struggle to transfer all taxes and rates to other shoulders ?

If the issue of a tariff-less New Zealand were put to the vote, with the corollary that the Government (which sounds £3-500 or more to plant a settler) should nut all tho displaced people upon rural land, not even the rural districts would vote for a measure as full of danger to themselves as to the ruban communities. Dural landowners well know that as long as land is considered to he worth what they have mortgaged it for, rural land cannot possibly absorb those people now dependent on growing secondary industries, to say nothing of the annual contingent of young men walking forth from colleges and schools. M - Poison’s propositions are not a policy. They never could become the ooliev oven of a Country Partv unless the farmers first cleaned their own stable.