Grains board unlikely in the meantime

Press, 15 October 1976, Page 14

Grains board unlikely in the meantime

It does not seem that there is much likelihood of a grains board being established in the near future.

At its last meeting the Dominion agriculture produce section council of Federated Farmers allowed a proposition supporting the principle of establishing a grain producers’ board to lie on the table. The chairman of the section, Mr A. L. Mulholland, said that other matters relating to the issue had been discussed in committee. Mr Mulholland said that the action of the council meant that growers were not prepared to do anything at present and it might be that they never would be. The idea was toyed with bv the last Government, but the most recent moves

study be done on it — that each province should have a look at it. The outcome was the “no action” course followed by the Dominion council last week. The main support for the concept came from the Waikato, with some support from Southland, but there was no doubt about it that Canterbury — the traditional granary of the country — was very much opposed to it. In the course of his section’s study of the concept, Mr Mulholland said it had emerged that growers could not see any gain coming from the establishment of a board. In a recent statement published in the federation’s journal, “Straight Furrow,” he said “the traditional grain grower in the South Island views the whole subject with extreme caution. Grain trading patterns have remained unchanged for almost a century, and many southern growers would want to see some real benefits before they would accept any major change.

“In other words they would not support change for change’s sake.”

But he agreed that if the grain growing industry reached the point where a significant proportion of its production went for export it might be desirable to have such an organisation. And indeed, he said, it was conceivable that such an organisation might be set up for maize itself — because it was an export industry and was continuing to grow, even although in the last season growers had had problems with the crop. Mr Mulholland said it was his view that they did not want to see the maize industry "crucify” the dairy industry in the north — he was in favour of farmers staying in the line of production that they could do well — but his feeling was that the position was under control and there did not appear to be an ill-advised move into maize.

Mr G. E. Rennie, who is chairman of the agriculture section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers, underlined some of the fears of grain growers about the grains board concept. He said that he was implacably opposed to such a body unless it was farmer operated, and he had some doubts whether in this day and age, when everyone thought that the consumer should have a say, a grower-controlled board was a possibility. It was his feeling that a lot of those who were talking about a grains board were really talking about co-operative activity. He could not see that the farmer would be better off with it.

The grain trade was

about the only area left where the farmer was free to trade as he wished, he said. In Canterbury people had been growing grain for 100 years and he felt that they had now accumulated a fair bit of expertise. They were fairly well equipped to cope with the ups and downs of t.ie trade. And merchants were quick to look at the possibilities overseas when there was a surplus to be dealt with and were able to find some grain at a reasonable price when there was a shortage here. He was not able to reconcile the views of those who saw that if there was a grains board growers would always be receiving a good price and the consumer paying a reasonable price. There was a danger, to, that if growers got into a grains board they would be putting themselves into a handy position for a take over by the Government or Treasury. Concern in this respect had been heightened by the way that the Government had come in this year to the setting of the trigger price for wool, which had not pleased wool growers. Part of the reason, too, for the poor reception for the board idea, he thought, was that the wheat price setting had been in the political area, and his view was that if there was a board there would be a political battle every year for a reasonable price. Some people said that unless farmers formed a grains board themselves they would have it forced on them, he said, but from past experience he could not go along with that point of view. In North Canterbury, he said that the consensus of opinion was against the board concept.

In the important MidCanterbury grain growing area the chairman of the agriculture section there, Mr O. T. Mangin, said that farmers were looking at the concept and in the long' term it was possible that it would become a reality, but the time for it had not come yet with farmers being quite happy with the way that things were at present. The chairman of the agriculture section of South Canterbury Federated Farmers, Mr R. M. Sinclair, said that his section had not discussed the matter as recently as some others, but when it had its approach had been one of caution to establishing a body that would intervene

in one of the few areas of free trading that were left to the farmer. But, he said, it was something that growers were actively looking into and they would be open to constructive ideas. They had to look to more co-or-dination of grower interests and unity was clearly essential. The sort of thing that he foresaw as a possibility was an expansion or extension of the role of United Wheatgrowers, which had a long record of looking after growers interests in the milling industry, and it might be given a more streamlined form. Certainly producers would be happier if any such development was grower controlled.