ECONOMIC MEASURES.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18823, 11 March 1931, Page 10

ECONOMIC MEASURES.

PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT. COMMENDED BY FARMERS. “That this meeting of the Temuka Branch of the Farmers’ Union commends the Prime Minister on his proposals as far as they go. dealing with the present economic situation and urges that some more definite steps be taken immediately to alleviate the burdens pressing on the primary producers in this Dominion, and urges also that the Government give a definite lead by reducing the rate of interest which it offers to investors.” The above was the text of a motion passed yesterday by the Temuka Branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, after discussion on the Prime Minister’s recent statement lasting over two hours. In introducing the discussion the chairman (Mr A. J. Davey), said he might as well be frank at the outset, and say that he was not at all pleased with the statement. First of all he wished to refer to a statement made to reporters in Christchurch, by the Prime Minister as follows:—“You gentlemen are just as qualified as I am to judge the situation, and to anticipate how Cabinet will deal with it.” For a Prime Minister to say that reporters should know what to do, merely proved Mr Forbes’s inability to meet the situation. The speaker said that, in the following discussion members should not make any sweeping condemnations, as the Prime Minister was undoubtedly in a difficult position. He was in a minority in the House, and was up against circumstances that were world wide. He was also up against a certain deficit in the Budget with a possibility of a still greater deficit next year. Mr Forbes had to use means calculated to avoid these contingencies. Mr Forbes seemed, however, to have lost sight of the fact, that other people had a budget to balance, as well as the Government. While the Government was faced with a reduced income, the individual was also; yet the statement issued served to increase the burden. Mr Davey said he did not think there was anything in the statement to make the primary producer think they were getting assistance. While incomes generally were smaller, they were faced with still heavier costs. Mr Davey here referred to the ten per cent, “cut” on civil sen-ants’ salaries, and said that, while this might be considered necessary, it seemed unfortunate that one section of the community should have been singled out. Those working under awards would, of course, remain as they were, unless legislation was brought down to allow' the Arbitration Court to undertake a revision To the speaker it appeared as if it would be more hopeful if the Prime Minister had worked along the lines of reducing other costs as well. Why not hit capital as well as labour? The salaries of civil servants meant their livelihood. “We farmers,” said Mr Davey, “have to be content with more than a ten per cent reduction. If something was done to reduce bank charges it would be helpful to us.” Mr Davey then referred to the fact that in cases where farmers were unable to meet their obligations, the mortgagee was able to step in and take over the property at about half its value. If land was of no value, nothing else was. Could not the Government step in and prevent mortgagees stepping in? Usually as a result of such action the land fell into the hands of someone who already had a great area. It tended also towards land aggregation, and broke up the life’s work of the unfortunate farmer. Mr Davey next referred to the four and a halfmillions spent annually on education in New Zealand. For a small Dominion this seemed a tremendous amount. He did not wish to detract from the value of education, but would suggest that education be turned along more useful lines. “We must be, and are, an exporting country, and education should be turned into these channels.” Referring again to the ten per cent cut, Mr Davey asked how they were going to act when there were professional men. and others, with a fixed scale of charges. In regard to taxation, Mr Forbes said it was probable that an increase would have to be made. Mr Davey considered the word ‘certain’ should have been used instead of ‘piobable.’ The Prime Minister stated also, that the whole question of taxation would be revised generally, and appealed to those holding capital on which farmers were working, to be sympathetic. How far did that appeal to the farmers? Mr Davey asked. They knew how sympathetic these people were. A commission had also been suggested, but the speaker was not in favour of this. Th.ere had been a commission in 1924, at considerable expense, but most of the report had been sent to the W.P.B. Farmers, the speaker continued, were going down and down, and there was no prospect of immediate relief shown in the statement. The Prime Minister, had stated that he purposed reviewing the tariff on wheat, but he (the speaker) thought wheatgrowers were not now receiving the value they should, from the growing of wheat. Wheat growers were quite willing to bear a portion of the burden, provided other avenues of industry, did the same. In conclusion, Mr Davey said, he hod just touched on a few points which had occurred to him as not being satisj factory to the farming community. The next speaker, who did not desire his name to appear in the Press asked the chairman now it would be possible to work a scheme by which both the mortgagee and mortgagor would be protected. He assured the chairman that no mortgagee wished to foieclose, as no one liked to have a farm thrown on his hands. When bad times came, was it a fair thing for mortgagees to take less? “If you do anything to injure the mortgagee,' he said, “you'll have money streaming rfi the land. Can you better the Prime Minister’s scheme? I’m sure I can’t.” Mr L. V. Talbot considered th<? question to be one of many sides. He had been surprised at the chairman’s opening remarks criticising the Prime Ministers statement. In his opinion most farmers were .hankful for the statement in that the Prime Minister had realised steps had to bp taken. Whatever steps Mr Forbes took he was sure to meet opposition, and a good deal of it “blind.” They must admit that it was the Government’s intention to make provision for a general reduction in wages, and that the Arbitration Court should have the power to make revision. That was as far as Mr Forbes could go. “ We as primary producers.” Mr Talbot said, “are getting something like a 50 per cent, cut, but no doubt thinkinnpeople must recognise a cut mur. come.” He did not know if ten per cent, would cover ihe cuts that wotud '°ve to be made. It was a difficult thing to make an" adjustment in capitalism, but most capital was disappearing without any adjustment on part of the Government. In conclusion. Mr Talbot said he was Inclined to think the chairman had | been too severe. His own belief was that the nosition had been faced too I late. He thought they should support the Government in any measures, to stabilise the country, they might undertake. t

Another speaker did not desire publicity. He said that fifty per cent, of the mortgages in New Zealand were held by the Government He rnsidered also that it Avould be interesting to know how much of the rest were comprised of monev that never existed. He referred to the action of sorr-e mortgagees as “pay up or walk out ”

Mr J. Macaulav thought that seeing that everyone else was. being curtailed

as far as cash was concerned, those who lent money might be prepared to agree to at least a small reduction in their rate of interest. Even a reduction of one per c.ent would help, I os they would only look for ridicule if • they asked for a large per cer.tage reduction. Mr G. J. Gould considered one jf the biggest factors, and one that had hardly been touched at all, was the cost of living. Mr H. Talbot thought the scheme had not had time to operate yet. He considered the Prime Minister was counting on the hope Ihat the Civil Servant cues and possible Arbitration » Court reductions were bound to offset the small amount received for primary produce. The chairman said lie would like to make it clear that he had no personal grievance with- the mortgagee. Speak- i ing in regard to rates of interest, he | would like to ask who fixed the rate of i interest—the Government. He agreed that both mortgagee and mortgagor should be prepared to make sacrifices. How many farmers in the lsst decade, Mr Davey asked, had paid their wives and sons a working wage and had been able to pay interest on their vested capital? He v'ould ask Mr Talbot to point to one thing in the statement that relieved farmers. Wages were like the swinging of a pendulum. They were the first to go across and the last to come back. How long they might have to look for a reduction in wages to affect the farmers would be hard to say. Mr Davey said he believed, they would emerge from the present turmoil, but a sadder and a wiser people. He had 1 no wish to criticise the Prime Minister too heartily, nor to make any party remarks. The motion quoted above, moved by Mr Macaulay, and seconded by Mr iVbot was then carried unanimously.