A FARMER’S PLAN.

Southland Times, Issue 21849, 28 October 1932, Page 3

A FARMER’S PLAN.

To the Editor. Sir, —Referring to “Phoenix’s” letter in last Wednesday’s paper. There are many points to recommend the scheme suggested but the biggest stumbling

block in the way of putting such a scheme into operation at the present time lies in the fact that we have no stability of prices on which to base our valuations. At the present time our second and third class land has no value whatever as the produce off this is not sufficient to pay working expenses —let alone anything in the way of wages for the occupier.

There can be no doubt about the important position which primary production holds in New Zealand. To quote one authority whose whole life has been spent in the service of the farming community “Everyone in New Zealand depends on the farmers. It is only the farmers who provide our export goods and without these exports this country could not deal with the outer world at all. Everyone in the country who is not farming is engaged in either serving the farmers or serving those who are serving the farmers. The farming industry is the basis of the economic life of the country. Everyone in the country is, therefore, vitally interested in the prosperity of the farmers. I am satisfied that unless the price level rises something else has to be done to relieve the position.” For three years the farmers have been shouldering the whole responsibility of the disastrous fall in prices of primary produce in that they have been piling up against their names huge debts for manures, seeds etc. to carry on production in the vain hope that prices would improve. That hope has not materialized and the farmer has come to the end of his resources, spent it would seem in the interests of New Zealand. Unless there are immediate and drastic measures taken for his relief the whole organization, socially, financially and otherwise, will collapse like a house of cards.

The present race of farmers in New Zealand are evidently amongst the most efficient in the world otherwise our produce would not have the prestige it has on the world’s markets; therefore it behoves everyone who has the interest of New Zealand at heart to see that these producers get a fair spin, and are given the assurance that they are to have security of tenure and equality of sacrifice. ’ Referring to my proposal published on the Sth inst. there are perhaps one or two clauses which do not convey the exact meaning which I intended. Clause I would perhaps convey my meaning better if it read: “All properties are to be responsible for their own debts unless it can be proved that the owner, previous to the depression, had to augment the returns from the property with returns from other sources so that the property could carry on. hi that case the amount, which could be claimed, would be in the same proportion as that in which augmentation took place in previous years.” Clause 8 should read: “Interest charged on money for necessary goods supplied in the interests of primary production, to be paid in full, also all money for the aforesaid goods to be paid in full.”

It has been stated that our mortgages represent the united savings of thousands of small investors and that the adoption of my scheme would jeopardize their interests. I am fully aware of, and recognize that the first part of the statement is correct, but I do not agree that the adoption of this scheme would jeopardise their interests. On the contrary it safeguards them as much as they can be safeguarded at the present time. What is the position of the second or third mortgagee under present conditions? When all is said and done a mortgage is only an investment of capital with the anticipation that it will receive interest. Present conditions preclude this idea being carried into effect as regards primary production, and it is only by every one exercising prudence and common sense that we can come out of our present difficulties without

harming some more than others. Has anyone thought of the possibility of prices stabilizing at a higher level and that if so, we should be agreeable to our mortgages being increased? Some may think that this is all in favour of the farmer. Certainly it aims at giving him security of tenure and equality of sacrifice; but is he not justly entitled to these? Has he not put in a lifetime working out an equity in the country for himself and family? Has he not during the last three years pledged his name to untold amounts in the interests of a losing game for himself, but one that has kept New Zealand secure? Is he asking that he shall no longer be held responsible for these debts? “We on our part agree to do our utmost to keep up production to the present standard and increase same if possible; to keep our properties and stock in good order; and in no way jeopardize any of our mortgagee's securities.” Is not this part of the scheme the most important individual clause in it? In this clause do we not promise that, to the best of our ability we will stand by the ship and see her through her stormy times—safeguarding all our mortgagees’ securities meanwhile. If we do not, then we break our agreement and I would be the first to condemn a fellow producer who did not carry out the spirit as well as the wording of the scheme. The time is past for selfish acting and thinking and it is only by undivided team work that we can hope to come through the present crisis with any credit to ourselves. Our very worthy Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, said the other day that we should have more of the “Nationhood spirit in our words and actions,” and it is this idea which I had in my mind when I first framed the proposal several months ago—the idea of uniting all interests connected with primary production into one body to carry on production in the interests of New Zealand.—l am, etc., GUY P. CHEWINGS. Invercargill, October 24, 1932.