INSUFFICIENT JUSTICE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 280, 25 November 1937, Page 9

INSUFFICIENT JUSTICE

MR. MONTGOMERIE’S REMITS COMPLAINT TO FARMERS’ UNION SUPPORT FROM OTHER BODIES A complaint that insufficient justice had been done to three remits forwarded to the district conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union at Dannevirke was received in a lengthy remit from the Makirikiri branch at yesterday’s meeting of the Wanganui Provincial Executive of the Farmers Union. The meeting decided to foiward the remit to the Dominion Executive without expressing _ its opinion on the matters contained therein. The remit, which was moved by Mr F. H. Jones (Makirikiri) and seconded by Mr R. O. Montgomerie, was as follows: —

"That insufficient justice has been done to remits Nos. 14, 52 and 62 on the agenda paper of the last combined conference at Dannevirke covering such front rank subjects as farm accountancy, land valuation and export trade figures. “It is also the opinion that the wishes of the Dannevirke conference that they be examined by a special committee and reported on to the Dominion Executive appear to have been flouted.

“This branch is of the opinion that at no time in our farming history has it been so vital that the farmers’ case should possess all possible effectiveness This branch feels that in the absence of due attention to them through adequate publicity in Point Blank that valuable and unanswerable arguments are being denied the opportunity of effectively adding to the farmers’ case “This branch therefore considers that the following questions should be forwarded to the Dominion Executive:—

“(1) In view of considerable editorial support in the Accountants’ Journal on June 20 last, does the Dominion Executive consider that no benefit would accrue to the farmer in having these claimed defects in farm accountancy effectively examined? If it is to the advantage of the farmer what steps does it propose to (a) establish these defects (b)) by suitable propaganda work in Point Blank, educate the farmer to the point of effective individual acceptance of these present claimed defects and the consequences of a continuance of the present inadequate methods?

"(2) Having regard to the questions addressed to the Government Statistician relative to export index figures, is the Dominion Executive of the opinion that no deeper causes of the inequitable conditions of farm production underlie the capitalisation 'in the 1914 base of such indices' of the wide disparity in the basic Unitea Kingdom-New Zealand costs as evidenced by the 14s-30s ration of coal prices? Does the executive considei that no further benefits to the farmers’ case can be secured by an examination of these alleged deepei

causes? “(3) In view of the incidence of the present graduated land tax, is it the opinion of the Dominion Executive that no benefits would accrue to the taxpayer if it can be proved that the present Government valuations ot farming lands apportion an unwarranted share of unimproved value to capital value.” Mr. F. H. Jones moved the adoption of the remits. In seconding the motion, Mr. R. O. Montgomerie said that recently a member of the Legislative Council had alleged that the Farmers’ Union was a political organisation and that less than 10 per cent, of the farmers belonged to their organisation. The New Zealand Year Book showed that there were 80,000 farmers in New Zealand and, according to Mr. O’Shea, | the membership of the Farmers Union was 25,000. Included in the 80,000 farmers were hundreds of civil servants and others who kept a cow | or two and were classed as farmers. Many farmers had both sheep, ana I cows and would be included twice so I that the actual number of farmers j would be from 35,000 to 40,000. Farmers’ Affairs I Mr Montgomerie said that for two ‘ reasons farmers’ affairs had got into 1 a bad state —the high value of land i and low prices. The farmers of New Zealand had to look to relief measures more than the farmers of any other part of the British Empire. This fact was an indication of the necessity of making a thorough examination of the whole question of farm management, costs and production. These matters had been put before I the union by him for six years and I two and a-half years ago he had advocated the procuration of the services of a front rank economist to examine the affairs of the farmers, cnly to be bowled down. Mr Montgomerie said that it was an extraordinary fact that while he could receive no assistance from farmers’ organisations, which should be vitally interested, he had been supported by a number of outside organisations. If the science of farm aci countancy had been developed in the l past many of the troubles of to-day I would have been obviated and sales

of land at excessive figures would noi have been made.

Regarding the matter of export index figures, Mr Montgomerie said I that three straightforward questions j had been sent to the Government Statistician who had sent his replies j to the union. Was the Farmers' Union satisfied that the replies from the statistician were sufficient to justify the matter being put on one side. The whole wellbeing of the farmer was wrapped up in the export index figures. There were farmers he knew who would not attend meetings of the executive because they considered their time would be better employeo on their farms. This was a very bad state of affairs and could be remedied by the union. The Makirikiri branch deserved considerable credit for its courage in supporting him. He was not asking the farmers to think along the same lines as himself but merely to have a thorough examination made of the proposals he was advancing; that these questions should be investigated and nationally understood. There was nothing vicious about this. Soil Fertility Mr Montgomerie said that it must be obvious that in New Zealand advantages were being enjoyed that were slowly disappearing. The fertility of the back country had been depleted and the same fate was awaiting the second-class land. These advantages not only had an economic aspect but a sound accountancy . aspect as well. Regarding export index figures, Mr . Montgomerie said that three reasont able questions had been addressed to the Government Statistician and the ■ answers were just what he expected. ■ However, the matter was too vitally . important to be shelved on these rei plies alone and warranted a thorough . examination of their merits. Dealing ’ with land valuation, he said that this - was a most important matter. If the ■ farmers of New Zealand were not f careful they would wake up one morning and find that whereas they . had owned an appreciable part of . their land values these had decreasea by 50 per cent. The whole matter was absolutely ridiculous and should . be subjected to a thorough investiga- • tion. He did not claim that his views were correct but only asked that they , should be examined as organisations r outside the ambit of the Farmers’ , Union were taking an interest in . them. , Mr J. H. Jones said that it seemed , to him that the important matters ~ brought forward by Mr Montgomerie t had been held up too long. It was no , use the farmers trying to better their _ conditions when important remits s were sent to Wellington and shelved . when replies were received from the e Government Statistician. This was not fair to the farmers themselves, s and was one of the reasons why more . members did not attend meetings of ■ the union.

Mr Montgomerie said that in attempting to secure justice for his proposals, he had not attempted to make any reflections on the Wanganui Executive.

Mr J. R. Franklin suggested that Mr Montgomerie should come along and discuss his proposals at a meeting of the executive when Mr Lloyd Hammond, who was in touch with business at head office, was present. Mr Montgomerie said that it had been unfortunate that he had not been present when Mr Hammond was attending an executive meeting. Mr W. Morrison said that the remit of the Makirikiri branch should not be forwarded to the Dominion Executive unless the Wanganui Executive subscribed to the proposals. The executive would have to be sure that it was in sympathy with Mr Montgomerie’s remits. Mr Montgomerie, however, was deserving of congratulation on his persistency. Mr G. McGregor said that he was entirely in sympathy with Mr Montgomerie. Had the Dannevirke conference devoted the whole of its time to a discussion on land valuation and costs of production the time would have been well spent. It was the cost of production that was eliminating the farmer. If the Farmers’ Union devoted the whole of its time for twelve months to the question of costs of production it would accomplish much. . , ~ . Mr A. P. Melville suggested that the matter should be held over until

the next meeting of the executive ana moved an amendment in this direction which was seconded. Mr Melville consented to withdraw his amendment provided that it was made clear that the union had not expressed its opinions on Mr Montgomerie’s proposals. The motion that the Makirikiri remit should be forwarded to the Dominion Executive was then carried.