“OVERSHOT THE TARGET’

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 75, 22 March 1933, Page 7

“OVERSHOT THE TARGET’

Manufacturers’ Statement “FARMERS NOT PAMPERED” DECLARES UNION IN REPLY ‘J The statement recently issued by tho New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation showing that the farming community is being pampered to the tunc of £l2 million by the general public of the Dominion, calls for some refutation,’ ’ says a. reply issued by the New Zealand Farmers’ Union yesterday. “Such a computation is both erroneous and fallacious as no allowances have been made for the values of benefits received from subsidies allowed. The principle that it is sound to spend £lOO to get in £l5O permeates the granting of all subsidies to the farming community. “Concessions on lime and fertilisers are stated as being £334,000,” says the Farmers’ Union. “These figures have been taken from the Government Estimates, but it is not expected that the actual expenditure for the year will exceed £310,000. “During tho past two years the small farmers of the Dominion have been unable to buy fertilisers. Recognising that the farming industry had to be saved, the department allowed the superphosphate manufacturers a subsidy of 11s a ton, now reduced to 8/10. Notwithstanding the concision, farmers have still to pay £4 a ton at. the works for superphosphate. “From the concessions totalling £310.000 should bo subtracted the values of benefits accruing therefrom — namely, increase in railway freights, in employment, and in national wealth.” Massey College Referring to the statutory grants'of £33,450 to Massey College, the Farmers’ Union says: “The Massey Agricultural College Act, 1926, permits of a subsidy being paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Massey agricultural College for maintenance purposes. “This bears the same relation as grants to university colleges made by the Education Department.”

Salaries and Service The salaries paid to the Live Stock, Dairy and Fields Divisions of the Department of Agriculture are stated by the Farmers’ Union to be £138,000, which is over £50,000 below that stated by the federation. No allowance was made by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation for the earnings of meat and dairy inspectors, £41,500, and for the grading fees oh dairy produce, £25,500.’ 'rhe Manufacturers’ Federation mentioned that farmers were benefiting by £300,000 for unemployed labour. “This is a. w’ild guess unsupported b> any facts or figures,” says the union. “Credit should be given to the farming community for absorbing some unemployed during the existing industrial crisis.” To say that; farmers are benefiting to the extent, of £8,000,000 by the exchange “is another wild, extravagant guess,” says the union, and is unsupported by any form of proof.” Tn regard to local rates relief, £250,000 .the Farmers’ Union states: — “This grant was made last year so that the various county councils could carry on. Owing to tho low ruling prices for produce, a big percentage, of our farmers could not make 'both ends meet,’ and local rates were left unpaid.” Tariff Protection Replying to the statement on the subject of tariff protection in England on butter and cheese, the union says: — “This is one of the humorous items in

the statement issued by the manufacturers, who, living in a glass house of protection, should not throw stones. During 1932, the sum of £303.709 was paid as duty on .imported ready-made clothing, £111,575 on imported hosiery, £91,572 on imported boots and shoes, and £90,804 on imported woollen piece goods. The purchasers of these four classes of goods therefore had to pay nearly £600,000 extra through tariff duties for these goods in order to help to ‘bolster up’ these industries in New Zealand!. Income Taxation “There is no need for tho New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation to worry over exemption from income taxation as the New Zealand Farmers’ Union supports the principles of taxation through income. “Summing up tho statement issued by tho New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation,’’ concludes the union s statement, “it is quite apparent that in its desire to have a good ‘whang’ at the farmer, it has raised its sights far too high, with tho consequent result that it has considerably overshot the target. Moreover, as the whole of the expenditure quoted in tho statement has been ratified by Parliament —the representatives of the public —there should be no criticism coming from a section of that general public.”