A National Incubus

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 264, 3 August 1932, Page 11

A National Incubus

Sir, —The whole of the wheat-using population of the Dominion, in other words the whole Dominion with the exception of the wheat-growers and millers, must be very deeply indebted to you for your candid and forceful leader, “A National Handicap,” of July 28. I venture to suggest that you understate the case when calling the wheat monopoly a national incubus; it is nothing short of a malignant octopus whose deadly tentacles reach out in numberless directions slowly but surely strangling numbers of what would be flourishing enterprises, for the sole benefit of the otherwise insignificant body of wheatgrowers and millers. That this state of affairs should have persisted, as you point out, through three successive Governments and with the approval of the three major political parties is nothing short of a national scandal, and is, surely, a most scathing commentary on our political representation. For the past few years I have discussed the wheat question with men in widely varying circumstances, and of all political colours, and without a single exception their replies have been that “the whole wheat duty question is a national scandal.” Yet the supposed representatives of the people allow the scandal to continue.. To add insult to injury the Prime Minister has since announced that the Government does not intend to make any alteration in the wheat duties during the coming session. Mr. W. W. Mulholland, chairman of the New Zealand Wheatgrowers’ Co-op. Association, Ltd., commonly known as the wheat pool, gives the key to the situation. He says: “Wheatgrowers can only hope to maintain their protection by being ever on the alert and perfecting the strongest possible organisation to protecj their interests.” This candid’admission that the wheatgrowers’ only objective is to “protect their interests” at the expense of the rest of the Dominion is truly illuminating. At one time the wbeatgrowers’ publicity expert was very fond of talking wheatgrowing as a “key industry.” The only way in which it resembles a key is that it most surely and effectively locks the door to further progress in a number of much larger industries. I trust that your plain statement of the real wheat position will bring home to the general body of wheat users the immense price they are paying for the privilege of allowing a few Canterbury and Otago farmers to grow wheat, and thus arouse them to some definite action in demanding the removal of this "national handicap.” Again thanktag you for your splendid stand against this iniquitous monopoly,— I am, etc., ANTI-WHEAT MONOPOLY. July 30.