THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1939 THE FARMING YIELD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23397, 13 July 1939, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 1939 THE FARMING YIELD

A plea for the cessation oft "erroneous propaganda regarding pastoral production in New Zealand" has been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Lee Martin. Like many of his Cabinet colleagues, Mr. Lee Martin chooses to adopt the Panglossian theory that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds," and so he is able to say that there is no evidence that total production in the Dominion is showing any permanent decline. This is all very cheerful, but farmers and others could reasonably wish that the Minister had been able to produce more convincing facts to support his own line of propaganda. Sheep Hocks as at April 30 have shown a decline of 500,000. Mr. Lee Martin admits that, but goes on to argue that a bad fattening season in 1938 caused a considerable carry-over, so that \ this season's decline really represents a return to normal. But in 1938 the level of. the sheep population was regarded as evidence of pastoral prosperity and the present attempt to describe a reduction as something healthy and desirable is merely another illustration of the facility with which the Government, in changing circumstances, shifts from ,one side of an argument to the other. Mr. Lee Martin also admits that since 1935 the number of dairy cows in tho Dominion has decreased by 79,000, but displays considerable mathematical ingenuity in proving that this, coupled with a fall in the sheep population, is indicative of a return to normal farming practice. The truth of the matter is that the Government, through its early preoccupation with the economics of distribution, has failed to encourage production. It has been so concerned with matters of currency and purchasing power that it has ignored the production of goods which alone represent real wealth. The net result is that the yield from the farming industry as a whole has not been maintained.

The decline in primary production cannot be denied, but Mr. Lee Martin assumes prophetic powers and says that it cannot be permanent. No one wants it to be permanent, but it will require more than pious sentiments to recover the ground that has been lost. It has been stated that the last three years have witnessed a reduction of 121,404 acres in the total occupied farming area in the Dominion. There was a drop of 6 per cent in dairy production in 1937-38 and for the season now closing a further fall of 11 per cent is predicted. This shows that the decline in production is not a sudden development. As far as the sheep population is concerned, heavy meat exports this year offer no real guarantee for the future. The reduction in numbers may not affect mutton and lamb production to any great extent because, as Mr. Lee Martin himself suggests, the proportion of breeding ewes may have been increased. It is possible that some such development has occurred as a direct result of British marketing restrictions which have caused New Zealand exporters to concentrate more on the lucrative lamb trade and to accept considerable reductions in shipments of mutton. But there are definite limits to which lamb exports can be encouraged at the expense of mutton and total production must be ultimately affected. Quite apart from that, a reduction in the size of flocks makes a smaller wool clip practically inescapable. In this respect, Mr. Lee Martin has quoted the varying figures for wool production over the last three years, as if to suggest that fluctuations in quantity are only to be expected. In taking that line, ho ignores the central argument in his Government's expansionist policy—that production will increase in the future in the same ratio as in the past. Present conditions do not justify Ministerial complacency. If living standards are to be maintained, production cannot be allowed to fall. It is all very well to express confidence in the recuperative powers of the farming industry, but the fact remains that an erratic curve for national production is a warning indication of economic instability. There is evidence already that primary production in the Dominion is being governed to an increasing extent by the range and tempo of the Government's policy of industrialisation. Precipitate action in the expansion of secondary industries cannot result in a balanced economy, particularly in a country which draws the bulk of its wealth from primary exports. As it is, Mr. Lee Martin makes oblique reference to the manner in which artificial textiles have reduced New Zealand's wool trade with Japan, Germany and Italy, but he does not mention that the indirect approach to industrial development through import restrictions has drawn the threat of an embargo on our considerable exports -of wool to France. A measure of industrial development is both necessary and desirable, but, a3 Mr. F. W. Doidge put it in the House of Representatives the other night, it would be foolish to believe that New Zealand is not relying mainly—and will not rely for a long time to come—on the products of the soil. Production is falling in the Dominion at a time when world commodity prices are rising. The very fact that the Government has found it necessary to set up a commission to inquire into sheepfanners' problems should be sufficient to discount official attempts at misplaced optimism..A greater productive effort must be made and a lirst essential toward real progress would be a practical acknowledgment from the Government that the Dominion's great agricultural and pastoral industry must receive first consideration..