The Bay of Plenty Times WEDNESDAY, JAN 27, 1943 WOOLGROWERS AND THEIR WOOL CHEQUES

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 13057, 27 January 1943, Page 2

The Bay of Plenty Times WEDNESDAY, JAN 27, 1943 WOOLGROWERS AND THEIR WOOL CHEQUES

The woolgrowers of the Dominion are becom ng ver, iestrv eat the Government's inaction in connection with the ij increase in the price of the current wool clip Government. The woolgrowers hare every right .Jo b%eiy J£ satisfied with the Government for its studied disregard of the i lit of the woolgrowers, and the Government's disregard of its moiai duty A? Ms matter is examined the attitude of the Government stands out in relief. Its attitude to the attithe country is distinctly autocratic and dictatorial, while its atti tude to the workers is distinctly subservient and grovelling. Let us trace the his\orv of the wool cheques, and in doing so the pecuHar action of the Government in respect of producers and workers will be seen. r • , +1 -R^iic-h The New Zealand woolgrowers never applied to-the British Government for any increase in the price-of wool. Hie appeal was made by Australian woolgrowers because of the abnormal rise m the cost of production. The British Government agreed to give the Australian woolgrowers an increase of 15 per cent, m price beginning with the 1942-43. clip. With characteristic fairness the British Government extended the increased price to woolgrowers m New Zealand and South Africa. When this was announced the Minister of Marketing, Mr Barclay, suggested that the 15 per cent, increase should be allowed to remain with tne Government. The woolgrowers refused to agree to this and demanded that the increase should be paid over to them as was intended by the British Government Thereupon the Minister of Marketing referred the matter to the Treasury for an opinion as to the probable effects oi this increased payment to woolgrowers. The Treasury replied that it would have an inflationary trend, which was quite correct. Without further ado the wool trade was notified that the Government would retain 15 per cent, of the wool cheque instead of 10 per cent, which had been the case previously. Inflation is no respecter of persons or organisations, whether the increased spending is by the Government, the primary producers or the trade unionists, the inflationary t"VP V\ c\ IS "fcll6X*6 Early in 1940 the Government appointed an Economic Stabilisation Committee to study the Conditions created by the war and to advise the Government, This committee advised that wages, costs, prices and rents should be stabilised.. This report was thrown aside and ignored to a large extent. A few necessary articles had their prices fixed, but wages were left severely alone. They were not fixed for that would have stultified the policy of "the sky is the limit." When the inflationary trend became very pronounced, and it was pronounced when the note issue had risen to over £30,000,000, which, for a population of about 1,600,000, is definite inflation—the Government stabilised wages in accordance with the report of the Stabilisation Committee. But this does not justify the Government in retaining 15 per cent, of the wool cheque. The Government would be in order in fixing the price of wool at the price that is being paid by the British Government. The Minister of Marketingis unable to justify the action of the Government in retaining the 15 per cent, increase in the wool cheque, and therefore the woolgrowers find themselves completely ignored. The Government cannot justify its action or offer any reasonable excuse for its inaction. We suggest that the woolgrowers should endeavour to have a question asked on the matter in the House of Commons. The British Government is directly interested for it has purchased the wool through the New Zealand Government which is acting as middle man for both parties and is therefore in a position of trust. It would be interesting to know what the President of the British Board of Trade thinks of-the matter.