SUPERPHOSPHATE SUBSIDY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 96, 20 October 1931, Page 6

SUPERPHOSPHATE SUBSIDY

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The average taxpayer can have no understanding of the true position of affairs in connection with the subsidy granted by the Government towards the cost of supplying superphosphate, otherwise I any sure there must have been a protest' throughout New Zealand. It weans a cost to the taxpayers of £100,000—a cost that I propose to show, with your permission, to be absolutely unwarranted. The following are facts. Basic slag has been selling this year at lower prices than for many years, even lower than superphosphate. The dairyfanners have been able to finance their requirements of superphosphate and basic slag. The sheep-farmers have not been able to finance their requirements; they simply have no money available. Ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty shillings allowance per ton, or even more, would make no difference. The sheep-farmer realised it was not possible to find any money at all. You can understand this when you consider that very many gheep-fannera have been unable even to .buy rams, and are forced to use old stock. This means a big drop in their breeding—a calamity. How then could they buy ■ fertilisers f It is thus shown that the dairy-farmer can finance his fertiliser requirements without help from the Government, and the aheepfaraer is absolutely precluded from the use of the fertiliser even if the Government assisted to the extent of 60 per cent, of the cost. Then what right has tne Government to throw away £100,000 of our money—and just when they are loading us with extra taxation? The only effect of the subsidy is to enable superphosphate to compete with basic slag. Why should superphosphate be singled out for this subsidy? Surely the farmers who use '-'slag" arc equally entitled to assistance. Is it right for the Government to interfere in trading? It was the action of the late Reform Government interfering with trade that was chiefly responsible for its downfall,, and here we have the spectacle of an ex-Reform Minister repeating the offence. •- I have spoken to several sheep-faraeis who in the past have been in the habit, ol using from 50 to 200 tons fertilisers, and they assure me that they would not be in a position to do so this year, ««»*«« .fertiliser was given to them. But that surely is obvious, and does not. call lor pvamnlcs.—-I am, etc., 6 P OVERTAXED. ! Featherston, 17th October.