FERTILISER AND LIME

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 27, 12 November 1947, Page 3

FERTILISER AND LIME

COMMITTEE’S REPORT DISCUSSED DEFEAT OF OPPOSITION AMENDMENT (P.A.) ' WELLINGTON, Nov. 11. For almost five hours to-night the House of Representatives discussed the report of the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee on lime and fertiliser subsidies. By 38 votes to 33 the Government defeated an amendment that parts of the report dealing with fertiliser be referred back to the committee. Evidence presented to the committee was that the withdrawal of the free railage of lime had come as something of a bombshell, especially to backcountry farmers and that the lime industry, faced with the cancellation of orders, might have been obliged to produce on an uneconomiic basis if no .remedial steps were taken, said Mr G. H. O. Wilson (Government, Palmerston North). Mr Wile on said that only by producing at full capacity could lime works keep prices down to the present level. Of the problems which emerged as a result of the cancellation of the subsidy some had still to be solved. The committee had decided that some assistance should be given to farmers on back-country land, but decided there should be a graduated system instead of free carriage, and that road transport should be included. The estimated cost of what the committee recommended would be about £200,000- for this year as against a probable cost of £300,000 for free railage had the old system been continued, said Mr Wilson. The committee felt that as farmers were receiving some benefit from increased produce prices the new form of subsidy should involve le-ss expenditure than the old. Fertiliser Question The question of fertiliser subsidy was more difficult in that in spite of some cancelled orders the demand still exceeded the supply, said Mr Wilson. The committee concluded, although perhaps not unanimously, that there would have to be different prices 'for fertiliser to assist back-country farmers to whom a definite allocation should be made. The committee would have Hiked to be more precise about details of the scheme, but the prin-ciple-was the right one. Mr W. Sullivan (Opposition, Bay of Plenty) said that as far as the committee’s recommendations on lime were concerned, tho situation was very largely met. If the Government would put the recommendations into effect the confidence of producers would be restored and production maintained and iincreased. Mr Sullivan said lie felt the report on fertiliser was of no value whatever. It was a Government to Government report, and the committee as a whole had. not been given an opportunity to discuss the fertiliser question ‘adequately. No consideration had been given to the increase in road, rail and sea freights. If duty on paper hags was withdrawn there could be a decrease of 8s a lon in the price of fertiliser. The report on fertiliser was a “dull and dismal thing” without mention of what assistance could be given to farmers who wer.e in trouble. v •

A witness before Ihe committee, Mr Bruce Levy, of the grasslands divis-ion-of the Department of Agricuture, said he feared for marginal lands with fertiliser at £lO a lon, and that phosphate and lime should be exploited on a, national basis, even if it meant the country’s paying, said Mr Sullivan. There was a definite case for continuing the fertiliser subsidy in full. Mr Sulllivan then moved that the report be referred back to tlie committee with a view to a more satisfactory recommendation being presented dealing with the distribution and price'of fertiliser so as to ensure that production would be maintained, especially on marginal land. Government Members' Views Mr A. C. Baxter (Government, Raglan) said '.the committee had been thrown a bone with no meat on it. The first big factor was that subsidies had been removed and. prices established, and whatever recommendations they might have liked to make could not at this stage interfere with either. In his opinion the total removal of subsidies was a mistake which would be costly to those on marginal land or doing developmental work. . Mr P. Kearins (Labour, Waima'rino) said Federated • Farmers, the Dairy Board and the meat Board were all in the "racket” for the removal of the subsidy on lime and fertiliser .so that there could be .a better pay-out to farmers on the good land. The sooner farmers made a change in their leadership the better for back-country farmers. The 16,000 farmers on marginal land would get very little out of it. The Government should look at the personnel of the Stabilisation Commission. The most unsatisfactory evidence heard by the conunitleo was from those people, “who treated us like a lot of children.” Mr W. 11. Gillespie (Opposition, llunimii) said that as soon as fanners solved one problem the Government presented them with another. The committee!* finding on fertiliser was obviotisy an insult to the committee. It was obviously prepared by someone outside the committee. Probably the Minister of Finance had a hand in it. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. E. L. Cullen) said the Minister of Finance had had no hand in drawing up the committee’s report. Cost of Bags

Discussing 11 1 n cost of fertiliser bags, Mr Cullen snkl this had already been allowed for in produce prices. Was it expected that the Government, .should pay twice? He acknowledged 1 hat. there was a case for providing special assistance to the farmer on. marginal land who benefited to a lesser extent from increased meal prices. The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. A. 11. Nordmeyer) admitted that it would be very difficult to determine which lands should receive fertiliser at the special price and how much fertiliser should be set aside for that purpose. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition

Piako) said the country was up against what could be a national calamity, brought, about by the system, the Government adopted in holding “hole-and-corner” discussions and then swearing people to secrecy. The Prime Minister (the Rh Hon. P. Fraser) said it was regrettable that the Opposition was indulging in a vehement attack on the Government. Ha denied that any hole-in-t lie-corner discussions had been held. The leaders of the farming industry had acted in good faith and so bad the Government. No blame was attachable to anyone. He felt sure the recommendation concerning 100,000 tons of fertiliser for marginal land was not. hard and fast. It was a Question lor experts and the exact determination might, take some time. The question of where Ihe money was to come from was of secondary importance as long as the job was done.