DERATING FARM LANDS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18613, 8 July 1930, Page 12

DERATING FARM LANDS.

To the Editor of the “ Tlmaru Herald.” Sir,—ln your report of the discussion at the meeting of the Farmers’ Union, on the above question, Mr Talbot says that he is “absolutely opposed” to the scheme. I am glad that he has shown definitely where he stands in this matter. It discloses an interesting situation, because here we have a provincial vice-president “absolutely opposing” a scheme brought forward by the Dominion president of his Union, and which has been endorsed by the Dominion Conference, supported by The Sheepowners’ Federation, and some of the Agricultural and Pastoral Associations, and adopted in a modified form by the Counties’ Conference. Under these circumstances, one would have thought that the South Canterbury Executive instead of condemning the whole scheme out of hand, would have decided to look further into it, especially as it has been brought forward with the sole idea of trying to get some relief for farmers from the burden of taxation, under which they are at present staggering. I hold no brief for Mr Poison, and am in no way cormected with any organisation, and my excuse, if any is needed for taking this matter up, is that I have always been keen to do anything to help the farmers, and in this instance, no one in this district seems prepared to move in a matter from which I feel sure some relief can be obtained. As many farmers do not seem to realise the benefit to be gained from the de-rating of farm lands, perhaps you will grant me space for some explanation. The idea behind the scheme Is to substitute some way of raising the money necessary for the upkeep of our roads, other than by making the farmers pay a road rate, and thereby relieve them of some of the taxation at present borne by the land. In days gone by, when the farmers carted all their stuff to and from the farms by dray, and were by far the largest users of the roads, the road rate system was fair and equitable, but with the advent of the “petrol age,” the position has completely changed, and we find that on many of our country roads the wear and tear comes mostly from others than farmers. That being so, it is only fair that the users of the_roads should help to pay for their upkeep. This has long been realised, and in England they have de-rated the farm lands, and in that country only 25 per cent of the population is rural, whilst in New Zealand we have 75 per cent of a rural population, making the scheme so much easier to carry out. Mr Poison is, at least, entitled to have his scheme discussed, especially in his own organisation, and not condemned and “absolutely opposed” without discussion. The petrol tax was chosen as the best method of raising the money required, as it made the tax easier to collect than at present, was more equitable. and could carried out without inflicting undue hardship on any one part of the community, as it simply means that the more one uses the roads, the more one has to pay towards their upkeep. The present system is out of date, and under it the farmers pay rates three times, petrol tax, road rates and loss on railways, and often get little benefit from any of them. The new scheme would cut down administration costs, compel the users to pay their share of the upkeep, and put road and motor competition on a fair

basis. After making allowance for a the heavier cartage rates, he would Jhave to pay, the farmer would still be much better off in the saving on his n rates. Last year county rates amounted 6 ' to £1,644,637, and it has been stated a that in some instances they have gone e up 700 per cent. The rating in the ” towns is often quoted as an argument 1 against the de-rating of farm lands, s: but they are on a different footing all a together, as they are used partly to b meet the cost of trams or buses J* libraries, sanitation, water and other social services. The way in which the proposed scheme would work out is b that a farmer paying £2O in rates would b have to drive his car 13,700 miles to b eat up this amount, under the new J taxation. In conclusion, sir, I would “ urge the farmers to grasp this chance of reducing their costs before it is too a late, and not to allow themselves to be t side-tracked.—l am, etc. * BRUCE GILLIES. * c