Farming Notes

Matamata Record, Volume XVI, Issue 1445, 27 July 1933, Page 6

Farming Notes

FARMERS’ UNION’S CASE.

Address by Mr. J. H. Furniss. The Farmers’ Union’s arguments in favour of the derating of land and of the adoption of the principle that “ the user of the road should pay,” were outlined in an address at Morrinsville on Saturday night by Mr. J. H. Furniss, of Huntly, a mem: ber of the Auckland executive of the union, and for six years a member of the Raglan County Council. Mr. R. A. S. Browne, president of the Morrinsville branch of the unions presided and apologised for the. small attendance which could be attributed to the wet weather. ; Th<j ..three major problems facing New Zealand, to-day in order of importance were currency reform, tariff reform 4 and derating, said Mr. Furniss. He pointed out that -it would . be of little benefit to landowners if the burden of rates was. lifted unless monetary reform and tariff reform were undertaken at the same time. An Unjust System.The Farmers’ Union contended that the present system of rating land for the cost of roads was unjust, antiquated arid wasteful. “ We are' not endeavouring to make other sections of the community pay, for the roads we use,” added Mr. Furniss. “ We want to put into operation the slogan that * the user of the road shall pay.’ Everyone will then pay according to the use made of the road.” Reviewing the growth of the system of rating in England during the past 300 years, Mr. Furniss stated that it had its origin in taxes collected by parish officers to feed and

cloth the unemployed, who were put to work mending the roads which had been in a state of neglect. The system began as a means of relieving unemployment, and had grown up from that. At one time the system of rating landowners was justified, because the main means of transport were the railways, and roads were only used to give people access to the railway. Now, conditions had altered. The. roads were available to the public, and it was surely unfair that the farmers should pay for the .use made by other sections of the public. * 4>

There was no difference between a road and a railway. Both were used by the public and should be run as national service. No man would agree to pay rates for a railway running past his land, but would say that any deficit in the railway finances should be met,, out of the public funds. The same should apply to the roads. The land itself does not use -he road. The road is only used when the land- is developed. There are cases where roads giving access to farms are hardly used at all, yet farmers who use the roads only to take stock in or out have to pay hundreds of pounds in rates. “ Class Taxation.” Rating of land was class taxation, because one special class landowners —was singled out for the tax. We had lost the American colonies through trying to levy taxation on the colonists for benefits which they had not received. In the same way landowners were singled out to bear a tax for benefits which they did not alone receive. The user should pay for roads just as he paid for everything else he used. Opponents of derating were raising the cry that the farmer wanted to shift the burden of road costs on to other sections. This was a mis-

statement. Farmers were simply asking for the burden to be put on to the shoulders of those who used the roads. Mr. Furniss appealed to his audience not to use the argument that “ derating was necessary because the farmer could not pay.” It was whether the principle was right that they should consider. “ Unscientific and Wasteful.” Besides being unjust, rating cf land was unscientific. The time was coming when there would have to be a reorganisation of the local bodies’ system. The county system was out of date, being “ a survival of the bullock waggon days.” There would have to be a regrouping of districts into traffic areas of the size of several present-day counties. At present some ridings had to pay high rates

because they were in the line of traffic although they received no benefit at all from this traffic. “ It is wasteful because it entails the maintenance of a multiplicity ;f clerks and engineers,” added Mr. Furniss. “It does not enable advantage to be taken of the latest equipment, as machinery is limited by funds at the disposal of a county. County clerks are becoming little more than debt collectors.: Their time is largely taken up with /getting the rates out of the ratepayers. Engineers are obliged to listen to sectional claims, instead of concentrating on a comprehensive plan which would be better and cheaper. Under the reorganisation on a national basis we do not want the substitution of local bodies for control by a Government department. We know the waste that goes on in Government departments, but if the finance was on a nationl basis your councillors and county officials would know just how much money they had to spend, they could plan their spending on the most economical basis, and sectional interests would not enter into consideration.

Where the Money Comes From.

“ It is not our business to say how the money is to be raised to derate land. Petrol comes into the picture, but there are other road users besides motor vehicles. We simply

: say ‘ the user should pay,’ whether a motorist or the user of horses and carts. In England they used to pay t -.xe.i on the size cf the tyre of c rts. It is net beyond ingenuity to fix a tax that vculc! be equitable. If travelling stock did damage there could be a pell tax on stock going to the sales. j Opponents’ Last Argument. i I “Wc have driven our opponents back to what I call ‘ their Hindenj burg line.’ The final argument is that *it would embarrass the Government.’ ” This was a poor argument. Unless a miracle happened and j prices went up, he feared that the entire farming community would bej come bankrupt. It was an admitted | fact that more and more farmers | are each year finding it difficult to pay their rates. This meant that there were fewer people who could pay rates, remaining to pay fixed debt charges. “You can solve it by universal bankruptcy or by legislation,” added Mr. Furniss. Which would be the most reasonable thing for the Government to do: To acknowledge their responsibilities or to wait until there is no equity in the farms and : there 'is a ruined farming community and ruined roads? ' 1 , yA

Opinion Favours Derating. A committee Of the House had endorsed the principle of the derating of farm land, "but the Government had not followed this advice! Mr. Furniss recalled the South Auckland conference of local bodies held last year when a resolution had been passed accepting total derating as the final objective, but stating that they would accept a measure of derating as an instalment. A committee set up by the meeting had sent a letter to the Prime Minister. “ If a thing is unjust and antiquated I am at a loss to understand why the members of county councils tolerate it,” declared Mr. Furniss in conclusion. “ Opposition to derating has practically ceased, and the only argument is that it would embarrass the Government. All we are concerned about is that the Government would destribute the burden so

that it would fall on those who use the roads. It is simply spreading the cost of the roads over the users of the roads. The money is found by New. Zealand to-day, but it is found in a manner which is as inequitable as it is unjust. The money will still be found in New Zealand, but in a manner that is equitable.”

BEKfii IMis OF IMS.