WHEAT-GROWING

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 128, 30 May 1917, Page 11

WHEAT-GROWING

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY DISCUSSED

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM

PRICES

Various aspects of the controversy which has arisen in regard to wheat-growing in New Zealand were discussed at length at the Wellington Provincial "Farmers' Union Conference at Marton yesterday. Mr. A. Stewart. (Marton) moved: — "That the Government see that all owners of wheat-growing land be asked to grow wheat in proportion to the... acreage they-own, whether they produced wheat last year or not, and the Governmentfix a minimum price instead of a maximum price." He stated that until farmers were given a free hand increased areas would not be sown in wheat. He reminded the conference that while the price of wheat was fixed, bakers were permitted to charge what they liked for bread. Ho believed that bread was dearer now than when, wheat .was up as high as 7s 3d per bushel. It was not generally realised that the cost of production of wheat had increased 100 per cont.

Mr. W. B. Matheson (Eketahuaa) said that if they were going to disenss maximum and minimum prices they should discuss a definite price. On his own part he" did hot like interfering with prices. Mr. B. Law stated that if the Government had fixed the price of 6s 6d per bushel there would have been no need for an agitation .to "grow more wheat." Wheat-growing would then bo a payable proposition. Mr. H. Daysh (Wairarapa) asserted that the extra wheat should have come from Australia. Australia was an ideal wheat-growing country and could supply as n.uch wheat as New Zealand required, and better wheat than New Zealand could produce. Mr. J. M'Leavey (Pahnerston North) stated that Australian wheat could have been secured at 3s 6d per bushel. "Mr. P. Beard (Marton) favoured the remit. If they had land in New Zealand which could produce 60 bushels to the acre why should they rely on an outside market? Farmers had not- to consider (the idea 'of a big .profit. They had to consider the position of the country as it -was at present. Mr.. M. M'Lean (Parataraumu) reminded the conference of the shipping difficulty. The stores at the freezing works were filled with surplus stock which they could not get away.' . It might not bfi possible or advisable to kill extensively nest year and, perhaps, farmers should grow more rdpe and turnips to see the stock through the winter.

Mr. H. A. Nivens (Tinui) stated that the whole trouble -with, wheat-growing was connected with labour at harvest time. The Government, would have to guarantee sufficient labour. Mr. J. H. Perrott (Feilding) asserted that the remit was being discussed from one point, of view : How much were they going ito make out of the wheat growing? On the other hand, farmers were being- asked 'to produce, wheat from a national standpoint. Of late years the cost of production had gone up enormously. A few years ago' the cost of threshing wheat was 3|d per bushel. It was now about 7-nd. He could not agi-ee with the proposal that all New Zealand's vheafc should come from Aiistralia. New Zealand should be selfcontained, and should bo able to produce all the foodstuffs needed.

Mr. G. H. Sykes (Master.ton) • stated thafc there >vas some misunderstanding as .to the price fixed by the Government for wheat. He had a letter from the Minister of Agriculture which stated that the price'waa 5s lOd, f.0.b., southern, ports. That meant about 6s in Marton or Masterton. He resented the cry of itho country versus town. The towns had sent their boy 3to Ithe front just as the country had. A voice; They can't help themselves now.

Mr. C. H. Perrett moved an amendment to the effect that all words after "not" in the remit should . be struck out, thus eliminating reference to minimum and maximum prices. After Mr. Stewart had replied the question was put and the amendment was carried by 31 votes to 20. EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. . Another aspect of the question was raised in a second remit from Marion, moved by Mr. P. Beard as follows: — "That crops of wheat and potatoes grown this season be exempted from incometax, and from excess profits tax, in order to stimulate the growing of these crops." He urged that wheat growers should have every assistance. Air. H. Daysh seconded the remit. Mr. W B. ; Mathesoii' (Eketahuna) said he hoped that the conference would not pass the remit. If anybody was making an excess profit, well, he should be willing and glad to pay 45 per cent, of it to the Government. He was not sure that he should not pay even 100 per. cent. However, he could not understand the remit coming forward after all the talk about the loss accruing from wheat growing. Mr. G. L. Marshall (Marton) stated that wheat growing- in the Rangitikei was more a gamble than anything else. During the last two years he, persoiially, had lost money with his wheat. Next year it was quite possible that they would have a bumper crop. Was it fair, then, that the Government should take' the bulk of the profit by way of a tax 1 Mr. G. H. Sykes (Masterton) said that the wheat men and the potato men were essentially small men, and the crops mentioned were hazardous.. They should be assisted and encouraged. Other speakers pointed out that if potato and wheat-growers were helped in the way suggested, so should the producers of cheese a-nd butter be assisted.

Mr. Ewen Campbell (Wanganui) said that the conference was losing sight of the fact that farmers had been specially urged to grow wheat and potatoes. Those farmers who complied with the Government's request were in a different category to the butter and cheese producers. The remit was lost by 23 to 16.' AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS.

That the greater use of machinery would facilitate wheat-growing was the suggestion contained in ii remit moved by Mr. A. L. Morgan (Gladstone) as follows:—"To ensure wheat' growing, the Government be requested to import'agricultural motors and sell them at cost to men willing to t-alte on contract ploughing, returned soldiers for preference." It was pointed out that the Agricultural Department'had already announced its willingness to assist in the direction proposed. The remit, therefore, was not seconded, and lapsed accordingly. ■