WHEAT FOR NEXT SEASON

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23811, 3 December 1942, Page 6

WHEAT FOR NEXT SEASON

SIGNING OF CONTRACTS

PRODUCTION COUNCIL’S

DISCUSSION

The Wheat Committee is treating the contract to grow wheat in the 194344 season as a pledge, and does not expect farmers who sign it to do the impossible. This was emphasised by the Wheat and Flour Controller (Mr H. McPherson) at a meeting of the North Canterbury District Council of Primary Production yesterday, when some members stated that a lot of farmers objected to signing the contracts with the brokers. The council received a letter from the Wheat Committee suggesting that it should ask its district committees to make now a strong effort to persuade farmers in their districts who had not already done so, to complete their wheat contract forms and hand them to the brokers promptly, so that on December 10 the committee would be able to make a preliminary estimate of the quantity of wheat to be sown under contract next season. Mr A. R, Turnbull said he thought the Wheat Committee had tackled the wheat-growing problem the wrong way when it sent out the contracts through the brokers. A lot of farmers would not sign contracts with the brokers because they felt that they might not be able to change over if one broker could get their wheat away in two days and another was unable to do so for a month. The approach to the farmers through the brokers had not been altogether successful, and an endeavour should be made to work through the Wheat Committee and see if better results could be obtained.

Mr A. H. Spratt said the farmer could alter the contract at any time. Mr Turnbull: But he doesn’t like doing it. Mr Spratt added that it was not the brokers’ desire to go out and sign the farmers up, but they had been asked by the Wheat Committee to get them to sign the contracts so the committee would be able to advise the Minister of Supply that the farmers in Canterbury would be growing so many acres next season. , ~ Mr McPherson said that Mr Turnbull was right. There were psychological pitfalls in the scheme, and the Wheat Committee had fallen into them. He had been told that the contract should have been called a pledge. That would have overcome a lot of the objections the farmers had to it. “This contract is a pledge made with the Wheat Committee, not with the brokers who are acting as agents,” said Mr McPherson. “There is no reason whatever why a farmer should not change his contract and notify the Wheat Committee if he objects to the broker with whom he has signed up. The Wheat Committee is treating the contract as a pledge and does expect farmers to do the impossible.” Mr McPherson added that the Wheat Committee hoped that farmers would treat the contract as a contract and not treat it lightly. If they contracted to grow 100 acres the committee hoped they would do their best to grow that amount. Up to date 56,000 acres had been promised, but there were a large number of contracts in the hands of the brokers which had not been sent to the committee. , Mr Turnbull said that in his district there were farmers who were willing to grow the wheat but would not sign a contract. , . .. “We want the wheat and not the contract,” replied Mr McPherson. “The farmer is not compelled to sign the contract, and if he is putting ip the wheat and not signing the contract we don’t mind.” . , .. . .. Mr Turnbull suggested that the Wheat Committee should send out circulars to the farmers informing them of the position in regard to the contracts, but when Mr McPherson stated that a large number of circulars on these lines had already gone out to farmers, the council decided to take no action. _