WHEAT COMPENSATION SCHEME DISCUSSED

Press, Volume C, Issue 29402, 3 January 1961, Page 10

WHEAT COMPENSATION SCHEME DISCUSSED

The opinion that the majority of wheatgrowers are satisfied with the compensation scheme to which they contribute Hd a bushel was expressed in Christchurch last week by Mr C. T. A. Ward, chairman of United Wheatgrowers (New Zealand), Ltd.

Mr Ward was commenting on the statement of a grower who expressed the belief that in the light of increased costs, and the higher price now paid for wheat, there was a case for raising the levy and the cover to the grower. He suggested that regardless of whether they would qualify for compensation under the scheme, as it stood at present, growers who had suffered frost damage should lodge a claim so that the adequacy or inadequacy of the present scheme could be demonstrated. This, he said, would provide valuable information for future investigation of the scheme.

It had been the opinion of directors of United Wheatgrowers that the scheme should be left as it was meantime so that the fund could be built up to a point where it was possible for another review of it to be made, said Mr Ward. Recently, the general manager of the Wheat Committee, Mr L. C. Dunshea, said that at the end of January last year the fund stood at £83,548 when 8.45 m bushels worth 13s fid a bushel were harvested. Three years previously when the harvest was 2.95 m bushels worth Ils fid a bushel the fund amounted to £68.398.

Mr Ward said that he thought that the scheme was going along nicely. The fund was being built up a little under the present arrangement with the grower meeting the first 50 per cent, of his loss. The grower for his part, where he suffered heavily, was able to secure money to buy seed and fertiliser and undertake cultivation. More Rigid

Should the extent of the cover be extended, Mr Ward said, the scheme would have to be administered more rigidly than at present when assessors could afford to be more generous with farmers. In the light of recent increases in levies for other purposes there might be some opposition to still another increase. Mr Ward recalled that when the scheme was first mooted after heavy hail losses in the Ashburton district no Insurance company would take the risk at any premium at all. A major disaster to the crop at the present stage could conceivably wipe out the fund, particularly if the cover was extended. Account was taken of the higher price of wheat today in that compensation was now paid on the basis of 13s fid a bushel. When the scheme was examined by the board of United

Wheatgrowers two years ago it was asked to look into what wider cover could be given if the levy was raised from a halfpenny to Id a bushel. After considering the expert views of the Crop Research Division and the Plant Diseases Division the board had then felt that there would be little purpose in attempting to widen the scope nt the scheme to include damage from causes such as leaf, stem or root diseases. It was also felt that insurance against sprout damage would be particularly difficult to administer. On the question of Increasing compensation payments for losses from hail, frost and flood, Mr Ward said at that time: “As the scheme operates at present the compensation ensures to the grower a 50 per cent, return, but in the administration of the scheme, including the consideration of claims, a healthy interpretation is placed on growers* interests. The amount of the fund is not, in the opinion of the board, an excessive amount with which to face the future, particularly with the general expectation of a return to wheatgrowing. . . , The amount will not, in the board's view, be too large to meet the position in the event of widespread losses in any season from the causes at present covered.”