FARM ACCOUNTING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 256, 28 October 1937, Page 6

FARM ACCOUNTING

- BASED ON FALSE PREMISES i 1 r UNION MEMBER’S CONTENTION ? COMPLAINT ABOUT REMITS Complaint that the “same old fate” (shelving) had been meted out to his remits on farm accountancy, soil survey and a method of compiling export index figures, was made by Mr. R. O. a Montgomerie (Kakatahi) to a meeting of the Wanganui Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union yesterday. t “But I intend to go on,” he said. Mr. W. J. Tripe (Fordell): You will ■ find the way of the reformer is very * hard. Mr. Montgomerie said that it was time the farmers collectively took intelligent notice of what affected them j individually. He contended that the whole system of farm accountancy ’ was wrong, so wrong that the filling in of an income-tax form was practi- ; cally a joke. He was sorry he had been unable to attend the last meeting when Mr. Lloyd Hammond (Rata) had been present to give an account . of what had happened to remits from I the combined conferences of farmers at Dannevirke. “But it was just the same old story,” he added. “They were shelved in Wellington.” Mr. T. Currie (Brunswick), president of the executive, stated that Mr. Montgomerie’s contention about the export index figures had been taken before the Government Statistician, who had given a reply. The speaker knew that that reply had not been . satisfactory to Mr. Montgomerie, but it had been to the effect that the scheme of calculating the export index figures suggested by him had been 1 in vogue since 1931. Mr. W. Morrison (Maxwell; sup- : ported Mr. Currie. The speaker stressed the difficulty of doing any- ; thing after soil surveys had been made. There was certain land on 1 which it did not pay to fertilise. The : production of the Dominion had in- 1 creased by 100 per cent, in the last 10 1 years, showing that what had already been done in the way of fertilising was ] having an effect. “And production I will still increase,” Mr. Morrison went I on. “It seems to me that we cannot I get any further with Mr. Mont- 1 gomerie’s suggestions. After all, is it' 1 going to put money in the farmers’ I pockets? That is the question. Surely there is no great difficulty in deter- I mining what is paid into a farm and I what comes off it. There may be some- I thing wrong with the system of accountancy, but what are you going to J do when you have what Mr. Mont- I gomerie suggests? Will the farmer be any better off? j

Replying, Mr. Montgomerie stated that soil survey had to be regarded separately and distinct from soil analysis. “We cannot have planned agriculture in New Zealand until we have a soil survey,” he contended, adding that a soil map had to be prepared showing the relative values of the various soils in the country and the right type of treatment thereof.

With regard to the export index figures, the Government Statistician had certainly given an official answer to an official enquiry, but the speaker pointed out that although the system had been changed in 1931 the Farmers’ Union Exchange Committee, in 1933, when all the hue and cry was raised about exchange, had used the old method in its quotations of figures. If the union, as a collective body, could not take a more intelligent interest in the farming industry than that, then it was a poor lookout for the industry. Apparently his remits had been put safely away in Wellington, and that was all the interest that was taken in them. “I think we are ..11 interested In the future of New Zealand,” the speaker proceeded, “and while the farmer is worrying about what is going to happen at the next election he is not sufficiently interested to see that included in this question of export index figures lie the whole of our troubles in this country. If we are not sufficiently interested, then we are not taking our industry seriously.” With reference to farm accountancy, Mr. Montgomerie said that it was foolish to tate that top-dressing was responsible for the increase in production in this country. Changed methods in mechanical management had been responsible for that. Only six per cent, of the productive land was top-dressed, and it was idle to say that six per cent, was responsible for the increase. Mr. Claud Smith (Brunswick): It has had a good deal to do with it. Mr. Montgomerie, to stress his, contention regarding the false premises on which farm accountancy is based, pointed out that if a farmer did not show in his returns the value lost through a drain on soil fertility his position would be overstated to the extent of that drain. In other words his capital would have wasted by that amount.

“There are fundamental causes for the rise of socialism,” Mr. Montgomerie proceeded, “but I submit that there is a complete answer to socialism in New Zealand. Those who do not take an intelligent interest in the future of the industry to which they belong are not doing their duty.” Mr. Currie said that the whole of the matters Mr. Montgomeries kept stressing had been handed to union headquarters, and whatever was done would be handled from there. “They are now out of our hands,” he said.