WHEAT INQUIRY Committee Begins Hearing Of Final Addresses

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29984, 20 November 1962, Page 9

WHEAT INQUIRY Committee Begins Hearing Of Final Addresses

No case whatever had been made out for a reduction of wheatgrowers’ proportionate representation on the Wheat Committee, said Mr E. E. England, on behalf of United Wheatgrowers, Ltd., when the Committee of Inquiry into the wheatgrowing, flourmilling and breadbaking industries began the hearing of final addresses from counsel yesterday.

Direct election of tlie Wheat Committee by growers, millers, bakers, and the rest, would also be unlikely to produce “a really workable committee,” Mr England said.

With the hearing of final addresses, the last stage of the committee’s public work has begun. Mr England’s was the only address given yesterday, but it is expected that they will all be completed by the end of Wednesday’s session. On any reduction of growers’ representation on the Wheat Committee, Mr England said it was already difficult for three “representatives'* to handle the problems of 8000 growers throughout New Zealand. “At present, users of wheat have at least equal, or possibly more, representation than growers on the committee,” he said.

“We say that direct election of members of the Wheat Committee by growers, millers, bakers, and the rest would be unlikely to produce a really workable committee,” said Mr England. “We consider that a system of appointment from elected panels would be sound. We agree, with the other interests, that appointments should be for a term of years —not less than five years—with a limited change of personnel each five years.” Membership of the Wheat Committee had been criticised by other parties because their representatives were not accountable within their own organisations, said Mr England. “I believe this is dead right, and that that is the way it should be,” he said. As an analogy, Mr England quoted the success of the European Common Market, which was run by men not even responsible for their own countries. “A significant requirement of members of the commission which runs the E.E.C. is that they are chosen not only for general competence but also for their indisputable independence from accepting instructions, or being influenced in any way. in the course of their duties, by national consideration,” said Mr England. .

Price Of Wheat In submissions on the price of wheat, Mr England asked the committee to remember that for many years New Zealand wheatgrowers had been paid as low as half the price of imported wheat from Australia, which was often of inferior quality—the New Zealand grower had been paid 4s 3d a bushel, as against the 14s 6d a bushel costing of Australian wheat. Discussing various varieties of wheat, Mr England said that wheatgrowers must

endeavour to supply all users of wheat with what they required. He emphasised the desirability of maintaining the premium on Hilgendorf 61 on an incentive basis when it became available, until the Hilgendorf acreage had improved to a desired level. On the other hand, it would be most unwise to discount Aotea in an attempt to encourage Hilgendorf. Speaking of the flourmillers, Mr England submitted that they must gear their intake, and storage systems, to modern New Zealand harvesting methods. They must also organise their finances to pay the farmer for wheat on terms similar to other products of the soil “If the millers don’t do that, wheatgrowing will fall,” he said.

Mr England agreed that the bakers were entitled to press for a flour suitable for modern baking methods—their troubles stemmed from wheatgrowing having been allowed to become the Cinderella of farming in the postwar years. The wheatgrowers, however, did not want to become enmeshed in the swaddles of subsidy. On the proposed crop registration scheme, Mr England said that such information could be got by an amendment to regulation 121, and repeated other arguments brought against it in previous submissions by Sir Walter Mulholland.

Self-Sufficiency Mr England summed up by asking the Committee of Inquiry to find that it was in the public interest that wheatgrowing should be steadily encouraged to the point of self-sufficiency. “I think it has been accepted by all the major interests that this should be so,” he said. The main factors in increasing the wheat acreage, said Mr England, would be: A clear and unequivocal declaration by the Government that it was its policy to secure an increased acreage. An incentive price, to give a substantially-improved return per acre when compared with “straight” grassland farming. Price stability, involving a minimum price declared two, or preferably three, harvests ahead. Marketing stability, involving for the grower the retention of the Wheat Committee, or some similar system to the point of sale.

Improved delivery of wheat, involving for the smaller and less wealthy growers its early acceptance, with storage for both bagged and bulk wheat, and, for the larger grower, the early assurance that his wheat would grade as “milling standard.” and so qualify for Storage increments—“because otherwise he’s not going to keep it,” said Mr Eng-land-plus a greater incentive for storage in view of the high capital cost and risk involved. Committee Thanked Mr England ended by thanking the Committee of Inquiry for a full and fair hearing. “ Whether this committee reaches any worldshaking decisions or not—and I know it will—and whether the Minister accepts your ideas or not—and I hope he will—this inquiry has served a very useful purpose in bringing the parties here round this table.” he said. “The parties will go away with a lot better knowledge of the other fellow’s problems.” The chairman. Mr J. H. Macdonald, thanked Mr England for his evidence and submissions brought forward, and the sitting was then adjourned until 9.30 a.m today.