WHEAT PROBLEM

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18969, 6 April 1927, Page 11

WHEAT PROBLEM

FARMERS MEET MINISTER. THE EMBARGO QUESTION. A problem of vital importance to fanners, namely, wheat-gnnviug, formed the subject of a conference between a largely attended meeting oi primary producers and the Minister for Agricvlture (the Hon. Mr Haw ken), who is at present on a visit to the Ashbur ion County. The meeting was heid under the auspices of the Mid-Lunter-n'ury rroViUciui .uAOouuve oi Mie i>e\* /jiiuiunU i'aimers' oniun and the Asnuurton A. ana i'. Association. „\ir james Carr vpresment of the iUui-'Oanieroury tiuuU ii^ocutive of the .New Zealand r anuers' u iuoii; presided, and luuouucea the Jiimster. iho Minister was present at the invitation of the Union to ootain some idea, of the amount of land under cultivation in Ash burton and the dixnculty under which they had to work. It he could solve the problem of wheatgrowing, thoy would lie the first to give him credit. He would like to say that so far as the increased protection against imported flour for which tliey were asking was concerned, they would not care if it were taken away, but because of the protection on secondary industries, the Government should be prepared to go further auc protect the primary producer. With the present charges for threshing oats, cartage, etc., it was impossible for farmers to grow this cereal at the price offered to-day and make a do of it. This extra production cost also applied to all branches of farming, including dairying. They were still paying their taxation, both Government and local body, on the land on the high valuation put on it in 1920. They had the recent increase of 2s 6d for shearing. "I hnve never seen any man who justifies that increase exoont Mr Justice Frazer," said Mr Carr. "Something will have to be done bv the Government to decrease the burden of hepw production cost on the farmer. The foundation was not strong enough to hold the structure they were building upon it, find that foundation was the farmers. Mr Carr said he could not see one instance of "-here the Government had retrenched. Not Settled Yet. Mr G. AV. Leadley expressed pleasure at having Mr Hawken with them and to realise the interest that he was taking in their business as farmers. The wheat question, he said, was not settled yet, although they were grateful for the promises given to them last week by the Prime Minister. Yet those who were in close touch knew that the difficulties had not yet been overcome. He drew attention to the great disparity of the price of wheat for export in Australia as compared with that for home consumption. "I want the Minister to tell us why we should be called upon to sell our wheat at a price which does not pay,'-' said the speaker. He wanted an answer to that question before leaving the room, if it were possible. The millers were taking their wheat at Is per bushel less than its real value, and were making a profit out of it. He wanted also to refer to the incidence of the dumping duty. He read the Customs Amendment Act of 1911, clause 11, relative to the rate of dumping duty. He contended that there were existing at the present moment abnormal trading conditions. He contended that the Government had the right to" impose special duties. Ho charged the Government with not doing what was right in that connexion. "What good was it to us to impose an embargo on wheat after June 30th," said the speaker. "It would be useless to us as most of the wheat would be sold." The condition in the country reflected upon the condition in the town. What would improve the position better than the farmer getting an adequate price for his wheat? Their wheat was worth 6s per bushel to-day. (Applause.) _ Mr Carr said he had several questions to put to the Minister, which he had received from. the South Canterbury Executive that afternoon, and he read the questions, which appeared in that day's issue of The Pbess. Minister's Reply.

.In rising to reply, Mr Hawken was greeted with applause. He knew a uttle about wheat, it having been grown on his father's farm some years ago. The Farmers' Union was a very useful body and it had brought before him many questions of vital importance to the community. The Government was fully alive to the serious position in which the farmers found themselves to-day. It was the same in practically every country. Unfortunately the rural community was not in as good a position as the Government would like to see it. He hoped as time went on to get a thorough acquaintance with the wheat-growing industry. Ho thought about 4 years ago that the Government took drastic steps in the direction of economy, but he did not think that the people followed that lead. He thought that there was a. great deal of examination required in the people's personal expenditure. He was not so sure th;>t they wanted greater production, but more particularly they required to balance the exports and imports. A Problem. "I say that wiieat is worth 6s per bushel,'' said Mr tlawken. ihey took the Auckland point with regard to wheat, i'he price in Australia plus the cha.'ges was the position which the price should be set in New Zealand. It cost £2 10s to grind wheat and then there was 17s (3d for the sacks and 10s 6d for the millers, making it £3 18s. If they took wheat at 6s 9d in sacks, and added it to the other, it made £9 17s. They reckoned £3 18s for the offal, lesis - r i per cent., which ' brought the price to £l9 17s on trucks, or 6s Id 1'.0.b., in the South Island. Taking Australian Hour, there was a charge of £5 os for landing, which brought the landed price up to £l6 los. At £lB Is, thev could give at least 6s Id f.o.b. South Island ports. Continuing, Mr Hawken said that, iu his opinion, wheat was worthy 6s per bushel f.0.b., but it was a fair tiling to deduct 3d for interest and stowage charges, which would make it os 9d. '"I believe that the millers have now got half the wheat in the country, and we are 1,000,000 bushels short of the country's requirements. That is going on the Department's statistics," he said. The price seemed to be a matter between the seller and the fiower. and he considered that those who held on till the spring would reC6ive Gs. The wheat-growers said that the Government should get them a fair price, but the latter gave them protection. and if the Government attemnted to arrange the price then it was" entering the trade. "It was very unwise for any Government to go bovi.nd the point of imposing duty. Resardine the duty, I am quite certain "rlvir °c are administering the traffic in conformity with the Act, and I feel sure that the Government will see that the dumping duty is properly administered." he remarked If we find thu the spirit of the Act is being defeated, then we have a strong reason for imposing an embargo, but not such a strong reason as Mr Leadley makes out to-day." , . tie believed that there was nothing abnormal affecting the wheat market nt the present time. He did not think that the bogey of Australian flour was

going to materialise. The little quantity of flour that they could sell to New Zealand was not going to induce them to lower their homo price. As for the time when the new duties wonld come into force, lie thought that there was some misunderstanding. They had to give Australia six months' notice, ami tiio duties could not come into force until that time -was up. Import Duties. Mr Carr; Has tluit notice been given yet '.l'he Minister: It will be, given, 1 btlieve, in a day or so. lleforring to the proposed Commission of Enquiry, he said it should be very valuable. They required a thorough enquiry into the marketing of wheat and the cost of production. Ho considered that the wheat-growers would have to organise their selling in order to get the best price, but he did not think that they could look to thn Government for help in that direction, for if the Government did it for one section of the community it would have to do it for others. H<could see that a great deal of the land in the Ashhnrton County was not suitable for anything else but wheat-grow-ing. He noticed in a paper that morning that the Cliristchurch Chamber of Commerce was asking the Government to reimpose the duty on bran anc! pollard, but it had never been taken off. It had always remained the same, namely, £1 per ton. so, apparently, the Chamber had been under a misapprehension. He did not know of anything that had caused the Government more thought and consideration than wheat. The Government could not fix the price, and they could get the real value only by combining among themselves. (Applause.) Mr Lend ley referred to the refund of freight from Australia, and produced a copy of an invoice which was as follows: —By freight refunded on 240 tons of flour, £202 14s lOd. The Minister: Let me get a copy of that. (Laughter.) Mr Leadley said he would have to erase the name, but it would show the Minister what thoy were up against. Mr Hawken: I "have to have fairly conclusive evidence of that sort of thing, but, mind you, if there is any of that trickery we will put it down. In answer to the chairman, he said that the Commission mentioned by the Prime Minister would be set up In roply to Mr W. T. Lift, Mr Hawken said he thought that there was the same duty on oats as on wheat. There was a possibility of New Zealand sending oats to Australia this year, and if they were not careful Australia mav put an embargo on them. A vote of thanks was passed to Mr Hawken.

PRIME MINISTER CRITICISED ASHBURTON LETTER. The following letter has been sent to the Prime Minister by Mr John Brown, v chairman of the wheat conferences in Ashburton in 1925 and 1926: "As chairman of the wheat confer- | ences in Ashburton in December, 1925, and January, 1926, I wish to draw your attention to the following misleading inaccuracy in the statement you made this week, at Timaru, on the wheat question. After stating that the Government ratified the May agreement for the 1926 crop you say: 'Another conference of growers, at which millers were present, decided in December, 1925, to request the Government to take control of the market during the season 1926-27 purchasing wheat from the growers at the price arranged in May. The Government were prepared to agree to this course. . . The December conference certainly asked for control for the- season 1926-27, but not at the prices arranged in May, and the official correspondence paasirig between the Minister for Agriculture (Mr Nosworthy) and myself clearly shows that the Government had no intention whatever of agreeing to the control of the 1926-27 wheat. Official Correspondence. "In proof of this let me quote from the correspondence. The concluding sentence of Mr Nosworthy's first letter to me on December 18th, 1925, is: 'Will you please take immediately such action as may be thought necessary definitely to advise the Government of the feeling of the majority of growers in the matter- of control in 1925-26, should the Government, as is likely, decline to agreo to control in subse : quent years. The matter will, I presume, require to be laid before a thoroughly representative meeting of growers.' "On the evening of the 19th. 1 replied: . 'Suggest it is inadvisable to anticipate the decision of Cabinet by taking for granted the refusal of the Ashburton conference request for control for 1926-27.'

"On tlie 21st Mr Nosworthy's reply says: 'Cabinet has now decided that there bo no control after the 1925-20 season.'

"Elsewhere in your statement the blame of tho change in policy is placed completely on the shoulders of the farmers, and, you emphasise the fact that at the January meeting of 1926 'the growers had their option between a free market behind the protection of the tariff and Government control, and when they deliberately chose the free market the Government conceded their request.' You also emphasise later in the statement the following point:— 'An embargo would necessitate price fixing of wheat, flour, and bread, and this policy had been tried 'and abandoned at the request and with the consent of the growers.' Let me say, with just as much emphasis, that though a free market for the 1925-26 crop was asked for by the growers at the January meeting of delegates, the decision to abandon the control policy was made nearly thirty days before, namely, on December 21st, 1925. In proof of this let me stato the facts. Previous Decisions. "The Ashburton conference of December 3rd, 1925, favoured, by a large majority, the control policy; a meeting called by the Canterbury A. and P. Association in Christchurch on December 16th, 1925, also, by a majority, favoured it; on December 21st, 1925, in spite of these decisions, Cabinet decided that it would abandon, the policy of control after the 1925-26 season. "Let rne quote the official copy of the resolution carried at the meeting of delegates on January 19th, 1926. It clearly shows the reason for asking a free market, and I would particularly draw your notice to the first words. The resolution reads as follows: —'First: That as the Government has refused to grant extended control, we ask for a free market for this year, 1925-26. Second: That the present duty be maintained on wheat, and that, as the duty on flour is insufficient. to allow the grower to benefit by the protection intended by Parliament when imposing the duty on wheat, and also, threatens the extinction of the flour-milling industry, and serious losa and inconvenience to the poultry and dairying industries, in the public interest it should be increased by one pound per ton.' "I would have been content to 'let the dead past bury its dead,' as Mr Burnett quoted in his speech at Timaru, but, because your statement will go down in the history of the wheat controversy, it is necessary to place on record this protest against certain portions of it, so that those who debate the question in Parliament next session will have the faets from the farmers' point of view as well as from the Government's,"