GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 60, 12 March 1927, Page 8

GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS

FARMERS' REPLY

(By Telegraph —Press Association.)

OAMARU, 11th March. The Government's objections to an embargo on flour as defined by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. 0. J. Hawken) on Wednesday were mentioned at a meeting of the North Otago Agricultural and Pastoral Association to-day. The objections are: (1) sucli action might reasonably be regarded as being in conflict with our reciprocal agreement with Australia; (2) an embargo would not be in the interests of the consumer; and (3) in view of the extra quantity of wheat grown this year it is very doubtful if an embargo on flour importations would have the effect hoped for by the New Zealand growers of wheat.

Mr. J. G. Ruddenklau said he could understand the first twol objections, but as he was unable to 'comprehend the third, he had telegraphed to -the Minister asking him to explain what he meant. The following reply had just been received: "My point was that a total embargo would not maintain the price of wheat if in fact there was a full crop, as millers would know they could buy requirements in such quantities and at such times as suited them. Under such circumstances, neither dumping duties' nor an embargo can assist the farmer if ho cannot delay selling. You will have noted that when dumping duties were imposed wheat went down in price. In my opinion it is not Australian flour that is competing with New Zealand wheat, but it is competition among farmers themselves in their anxiety to sell their grain. It must be far more profitable for millers to grind Now Zealand wheat at present prices than to import Australian flour. In fact they could undersell Hour at prices they arc giving for New Zealand wheat. Mr. Maehin's statement in tho Christchurch "Press" that it is the dumping of flour that is depressing the market is, in my opinion, fallacious."

Members were highly amused at the suggestion that it was competition among farmers themselves that was creating the present position. Mr. ltodger thought they should reply stating they entirely disagreed with the Minister, and that they considered an embargo on Australian flour would assist wheat-growers. A motion along thoso lines was unanimously supported.