page 13

Reply to cockies plight

In reply to P.D.'s letter on the Cockies Plight. Firstly I would like to agree with him that many cockies have got it made pretty well and there is no question on whether they get things easy. However, I was not talking about these farmers in the article and I would like to make the following points. The first point he raises is that we all know statistics can be fiddled to argue better points of view. What rubbish! If statistics are complied by an organisation like the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, using the best materiel available, and the statistics all give the same basic results how can he make this allegation. Secondly, he gives himself away when he says he comes from a small country town and has worked on many farms. Of course if he has worked on many farms he has worked for the cockies who can afford to hire labour — and the number of those who can is getting smaller every day.

His next stupid generalisation, "the average NZ cockey is bone fucking lazy" is hardly worth answering, as most intelligent people concede we owe our standard of living to farmers. Sure, stock fall over banks as a result of no fences, but it must be recognised that some stock fall over banks because the hills are too steep for stock of certain breeds to stand on them. And if the farmer cannot afford fencing materials, how can he fence these areas off? Certainly scrub grows because of no control but you must remember my friend that it takes dollars to apply superphosphate or get scrub cut, for this Is usually a big Job. We are next told that the average cockey calls in a contractor as soon as he wants something done — great stuff especially if you've got dollars and cents. What about the farmers who have to shear their own sheep because it costs more to have contractor do it than the return it brings in.

I think if P.D. checked out how many cockles were in the class of 74 Falcons, colour TV and $20 per week beer pots he would find the number very small Indeed.

His second to lest point implies many farmers do not know much about running a farm. Wrong again. In spite of not receiving adequate returns farming Is about the only sector of our economy that has continually increased productivity except In 1969/70 (seepage 81 "Farming and Inflation") How could farmers do this if they did not know what they were up to?

P.D.'s final point about us really being in the shit if big companies did not control many farms cannot be proven either. Most farmers cherish their Independence and being told what to do by big firms often causes the farmer to take a very negative attitude, for any progress he makes is quickly swallowed up by these firms.

In reply to Anthony Ward's letter to Salient, I would like to point out that the diagram comparative incomes 1965-74 was an addition put In at the last minute for reasons of layout. I do not know what statistical source the graph was based on but I would say it is in pan a fair representation of income farmers have received. At present the wool market has again drastically dropped and although the new season has not yet started in NZ, the Australian Wool Commission spent $10 million in one day supporting the prices in one of their seasons opening sales. Of course statistics up to fairly recent time periods must be hypothetical in part but they are not in the realm of "pure speculation" as Anthony thinks in this case and he can verify this by going out and seeing some farmers and finding out what they are getting for their meat and wool.

Anthony claims the tables from the Institute are misleading in that they do not contain the effects of the last two years. I must disagree again. The information in the diagrams published from the Institute would be about the most up to date reliable information available as the source of this information was mainly tax returns. I ask Anthony Ward if he knows how far behind the Government Statistician is in its work? Anthony Ward must realise that when dealing with statistics you must weigh-up old factual data with timely hypothetical data.

His last point is about why farmers in to to oppose a scheme that will take a little uncertainty out of the situation. I take it Anthony was talking about the Wool Corporation and if so his claim is not true. There are many farmers who are for this scheme end even wool board members. I am not going to argue either for or against it but I suggest to Anthony Ward that he read this week's Interview with Brian Philpot for I feel he really doesn't know much about the "she'll be right" attitude many farmers have.