AN OLD QUESTION REVIVED

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2246, 18 July 1908, Page 1

AN OLD QUESTION REVIVED

SHOULD THE NEW ZEALAND FARMERS’ UNION TAKE PART IN POLITICS? SUGGESTED PLATFORM AND APPEAL TO THE DOMINION EXECUTIVE. Tho following circular issued by the Auckland Provincial Executive of the Now Zealand Farmer’s Union was read yesterday at t'lio meeting of the Poverty Bay Executive: —The question whether the Fanners’ Union should or should not take an active part in polities is of perennial interest. Lately it has loomed largely at almost every provincial conference of the Union, and the desirability of adopting a moro militant attitude, is ono of thoso matters which must inevitably bo forced upon tlio consideration of- delegates at the coming Dominion conference of the Union. I The feeling of tlio Northern Unions has: always been that the farmer, s-r of the eon'vtry should present a.,uniic:s irbnr-to tlio socialist demands of the proletariat, and to the eemi-socialis-. tic legislation of the Government, and it is certain that the Auckland delegates to the Dominion conference, which is expected to be held in Wellington next month will make a very strong appeal to th e Dominion Executive, and through it to tile several branches of the Union throughout the colony to formulate a fighting platform land a party of their own, so that candidates who do not subscribe to that platform will have no chance of securing the support of the members of the Union. A scheme was recently outlined by a member of the Auckland Provincial Executive, which received the unanimous approval of the branch of which he is a member. It suggests that the Dominion Executive should be petitioned “to take a more active part in politics and to get every farmer, whether a member of the Union or not to sign it.” The paper from which we quote proceeds as follows:

“We realize that so far the Union has not gained the support of the farmers, and we ar 0 inclined to think that this is due to the fact that the Union has taken a side in politics and has not formed (as we think it ought) a party of its own. “We propose to confine our platform to three planks, so as not to trend on anybody’s corns. We think that no farmer can rais e any objection to our planks and we further

think that, if he does he is so blind to his own interest that we are better without his support. i “These are our planks: 1. “That taxation should bo for revenue purposes only. 2. “That only ratepayers bo empowered to vote on local government matters. 3. “The optional tenure.

“We think that these three planks cover all that farmers arc deeply interested in.

\ “Take the first plank. This covers the question of cost of living and rate of wages, and is the vital question to farmers. “Wo have tried to arrivo at the cost of protection to farmers, but the question is subject to s 0 many ramifications that it is impossible to arrive at more than the minimum amount. Th 0 minimum amount as far as wo can be certain is as follows:

“This is the minimum and goodness alone knows what the maximum may be. For instance, take, the cost of distribution. AA'e have taken it

.it 10s per head; but let mo giro you a few examples. I will first take meat. Tlio average price for steer and cow beef, neither does, nor has, much exceeded 20s per lOOlbs. For instance, the Loan Co. quoto this week •(June 4, 1908), steer beef 21s, cow beef 17s to 19s per lOOlbs; average 19s 6d, and yet this meat delivered to customers averages quite 5d per lb, or more than double the coat of live meat. Now take bread; 2801bs of flour will anake 3601bs of bread. The average cost of flour in Auckland, by the sack, is 12s per 1001 b., so that the 2801bs flour makes 90 41b loaves, the gross amount received by the baker is 52s 6d, which seems to 'leave ■a. pretty considerable margin for profit; but, as a matter of fact, most of it (as in the case of beef) is eaten up in cost of distribution. I could give you other examples, Ipit I think I have said enough to show you that we have very much under estimated this item. If you consider how many hands: each article passes through before it reaches the consumer, and when you consider that each of these persons received fully 25 per cent, more in wages than would be necessary 'under a revenue tariff, you will grasp what wo are paying forprotection. I say that not only should wo win the farmers’ vote on this plank, but the vote of every thinking working man, because our figures are worked out at per head of population, and th e working man pays equally with the farmers. IVhere tho difference comes in, however, is that, whereas the working man can, through the Arbitration Act, wriggle up his wage to a ‘living wage,’ the farmer has to sell his produce in the open market, and has to be content with what he gets, whether it is. a living wage or starvation. 1 know of a settler who values his place and stock at £IS2S, and his gross income is, he says, £l7l. But he estimates that it costs for-seed, manure, wire, etc., to keep his place going, £3O per annum. This leaves him a net income of £l4l. Deduct 5 per cent, for his capital (£9l ss), anti you. have the magnificent sum of £49 15s, loft as payment to himself and family for a year’s work, or 19s 2Jd per week. I think you will agree with mo that this ia not a fair "return, cither for his canital or labor.

“Our second plank, I need not touch on beyond saying that if there should be no taxation without representation, neither should there be any representation where there is no -taxation.

“Our third plank also requires no remark from me. The fanners of New Zealand" have quite made up their minds on this question. “In conclusion 1 should like to point out that, as the farmer produces 82 per cent, of the wealth of the colony, it is only his due that he should have a say in the finance of tile colony. The. present system, if

continued, will kill the goose that lays .the golden egg, by so raising the cost of production that we shall bo unable to export at a price that will enable us tp sell our produce in the markets of the world. Air Bryan I think it was who said ‘You may destroy our cities, but if the prairie is productive ‘the cities will spring up again; but destroy our prairie and the grass .will grow in the cities’ streets.’ ”

Cost of taxation through CueUsd ! toins per head of population "Cost through protective tariff 3 19 S (actual) 15 0 Increased cost of distribution 10 0 Cost of protection per head Direct taxation per head of 419 9 ! population 15 1 Local taxation 1 8 8 Total taxation per head Taxation per family of pa713 0 rents and o children 53 14 0