THE WHEAT PURCHASE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 18, 21 July 1932, Page 13

THE WHEAT PURCHASE

CRITICISM REITERATED

IMPORTERS UNCONVINCED

Commenting on the cablegram from Sydney published yesterday stating that the allegation that the New Zealand Government had paid £.10,000 too much for its recent purchase of Australian wheat was not substantiated in Sydney, Mr. Gainor Jackson, chairman of (he importers' section of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, said it was unfortunate that the cablegram did notstate the prices paid hy f the Wheat Marketing Agency Company, Ltd., the trade name of the Wheat Marketing Board, says the "Star." "This being absent," "he said, "the reply is anything but reassuring. From information in our possession we again affirm that the prices pafil were considerably in excess of ruling market prices for f.a.q. (fair average quality) wheat at the time when and place where bought. It is no answer to say that one sample scaled 651b to the bushel. My committee had already anticipated that the Wheat Marketing Board would fall back on the defence that it had bought specially hard milling wheat. "We have it on the authority of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce that practically no hard wheat is grown in Victoria, and that only one grade .is sold—f.a,q.- Our information is to tho effect that purchases were confined to one buying agent, Mr. Davidson, of Sydney, appointed by the Wheat Marketing Agency Co., Ltd. Importations of wheat under the arrangements made by the Government are restricted solely to this company. In the circumstances j it can hardly be said that tenders were I invited and that competition was quite open. The message claims that full market rates were justified, but we still say that the prices paid were more than full market rates for f,a.q. wheat, and as this reduces the duty payable on the importations of 850,000 bushels, the country's revenue will suffer accordingly. ■■•-■■ "Despite the Government's announcement that no profit or advantage would accrue to the Wheat Marketing Agency Co., Ltd., under the [ arrangement, we consider that the question of both profit and advantage is inseparably associated, with the monopoly granted to this company."