SHORT AGAIN

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 69, 18 September 1925, Page 7

SHORT AGAIN

DOMINION WHEAT CROP

HEAVY IMPORTING INEVITABLE

ATTITUDE OF THE FARMERS,

Kegret was expressed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Nosworthy) in his recent annual statement at the failure of farmers to supply sufficient wheat. He hoped that for next season recourse to importations would not be necessary. But last night he said "the bulk of the fowl and milling wheat will have to be imported." This in reply to,Mr/Witty, who said poultry farmers were paying more for an inferior article than the current price for good milling wheat.' ;

From ■ present indications^ Mr. Nosworthy's hope is vain, and for three reasons :— , .•:•„■

1. Bad -weather in the wheat-growing districts. - ■'.-.. ' 2. An existing shortage of 3.500,000 bushels of the Dominion's requirements. 3. Uncertainty of the farmer as to the future value of wheat. ■',-■■ ' These causes operating against a selfreliance policy in respect to wheat are beyond legislative control. The first is deplorable, but the best will have to bo made of it; but it, has now a very serious aspect, especially in Canterbury. The second hardly requires explanation, still the position can be seen in the following little table :— -; ; :

Dominion Needs. Buaheli. Milling wheat 6.500,000 ..' Poultry wheat ..........1.500,000 Seed wheat ..'. 500,000

8,500,000 The Government Statistician, -reports the quantity of wheat threshed, January- July^ 4.956,883. Say 5,000,000 bushels is made available, the shortage is

3,500,000 bushels. Already there, has been imported to meet the reduced production wheat to the value of £1,440,056 since Ist January, 1924. On that must go. freights, sacks, insurance, commissions, exchange/1 1 and other incidental charges, in the aggregate a substantial sum, almost all of which in form of capital would, have been saved from exportation from New Zealand had the farmers produced enough wheat for the country's'needs. '/■ That the future for a self-reliant grain policy is dark will be evident'from the report in the "Timaru Herald" of a,re-' cent meeting of the South Canterbury executive of the Farmers' Union. Vlt was - reported to t'halt meeting that the Wheat Board -was ready to present iti report on the proposed wheat marketing scheme for 1925-26... One clause in'that report provides that the agreement is subject to the Government imposing an embargo on v the importation of flour into New Zealand, from the date. : of. the: agreement; or in the event of the Goveminent fixing lower maximum prices per ton than £18 for flour, £1 for bran and £8 for pollard. It is proposed that each miller shall. deduct £d per-bushel - for administration expenses. V ; BIG SHORTAGE NEXT YEAR

The chairman (Mr. J. .Trotter);"who ia a . member of the Wheat Board, {said that it was evident that there would , be a; big shortage of wheat next year. ' From'■': lafl the information available ;he did not'think that there would, be any more; than .3,000,000 bushels; and this meant that! thdre wbuld be a ehortage <of at least 4>OOO,G\jO bushels. The position was serious, but it was.,no fault of the farmers,; for they!' had done their best to sow as much wheat as , possible, but the weather had absolutely prevented; them from sowing any more. The .Government had offered minimum prices, but said that, these, would, only be given if a genuine attempt ; were made to sow as much wheat as possible. Millers said that they would'not agree to the Government prices,, unless, the Government imposed an embargo :on the importation of flour into New Zealand ; or if the Government fixed lower prices for flour than £18 per ton, £7 tor bran, and £8 for pollard. , This was only reasonable, as the millers/could not be expected to pay high, prices for wheat if they .had unrestricted competition against imported flour. Mr. .Trotter: read, the proposed wheat agreement, and said that there were so many.."ifs" and . "buts" about it that they could not tell where they were;, there was nothing conclusive about it. They might go to all the trouble of fixing up an ■ agreement only to find that, there, was - a loophole in it for. everybody. Under these circumstances, and the absence of a definite promise of fixed prices by the Government, he'could not see that the agreement would be much good to them. ' - Mr. P. R. Talbot said he felt mire that the Government would pay the prices they had named for next season's wheat, namely 6s sd, 6s 7d, and 6s: 9d. . ; .•■ „v "•■ ■■• /■■ '■' •.-.■•

FEAR OF AN OPEN MARKET The chairman was certain that wheat

next season would be worth more than the prices named. „ • Mr!. Talbot said that the Government had'to see that • the' people were fed; and while he had 100 acres in wheat and wanted to get as much as he could for it, it would be better' to be content with six or seven shillings "per bushel than to have an open market and get perhaps Bs. If they had an open market it would mean that the present duty of Is 3d per buahel on wheat would^ b$ taken off, and if that happened it was doubtful if they would, get it on again. They might under these circumstances, have to accept 4s for their wheat the following years, and it would'be much better to have some-stability about the [price in the region of six shillings. The i Government had said that they aid not want the price of bread .to !go beyond Is per loaf, and they, wpuld make every endeavour ■to keep J flour at- a price which, would make the ' shilling loaf, possible. . The millers would no -doubt be willing to give' them world's parity if they had "a free hand to charge 1 accordingly for flour. On the wholejohe thought the union should agree to the suggested prices. . ; ; Doubt was expressed by certain members as to whether the prices were maximum or minimum, and two speakers held that farmers would be better without any agreement. ' . . •• ■ ■ . . FARMERS HOLDING WHEAT

The chairman thought it would be a' pity-for farmers to bind themselves to an agreement, as thero would be a scarcity next season. Ho said he kneW of farmers who were still holding last year's wheat;- ■ Mr. Lewis- said that bread was the cheapest thing they had to cat/ nrnl farmers ought to got fttll value for their wheat.- . -.•■•■ ■ "•■ .. Mr. Talbot feared, that if bread went up one penny per loaf, the Government would take oft' both duty and embargo. Several members expressed the opinion that they had been under the .impression until that day that the prices named were minimum prices, Mr. .Ward adding that before they committed themselves) to any agreement, they woujd require an apsunmeo that these prices' woiitU bo. paid. - - V, - . Hr. 'i'hlbol add thai-if Lkt unba "jvent

back on the agreement now it would be a smack on the face for the delegates (Mr. Midgely and,himself).' The chairman-said that that, was not so; the proposed agreement was' too indefinite to tie themselves to. CUTTING BOTH WAYS , Mr. A.. F, Campbell said it seemed to him that the union now wanted to repudiate what they had previously agreed to. If there were signs of. a surplus wheat, they would want to make the Government adhere to those prices, but as it seemed* there was to be shortage they want a' free market to get as much as they could. He did not Believe in that. The chairman said that that was not \ the position. There was nothing definite about the agreement; nothing had been signed by either party, and there could, therefore, be no question of repudiation. Moreover, there had evidently been a general misconception among growers, who supposed that the prices named were minimum prices. .-... After further discussion, it was decided, on the motion of Messrs. Lewis and Angland, to ask the delegates from South Canterbury to.inform the Wheat Board that the "proposed agreement is not acceptable. j