The Evening Star MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1925. THE NEW ZEALAND WHEAT GROWER.

Evening Star, Issue 18925, 27 April 1925, Page 6

The Evening Star MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1925. THE NEW ZEALAND WHEAT GROWER.

During last month 1,300 tons of Australian flour were imported into New Zealand. This is a new development. Last year New Zealand’s wheat yield fell short of domestic requirement*?, but locally grown wheat was gristed imtil supplies were in sight of exhaustion point, and then the Government kept the New Zealand mills going with Australian purchases. The succeeding wheat harvest in New Zealand has fallen even further short of requirements. The yield is estimated to cover only eight or nine months of the dominion’s consumption. But long before that time has elapsed importations, not of wheat, but of flour, from Australia are being made. The changed form in which the importations of foodstuffs is being made is significant. There has, in the meantime, been a lifting of embargoes, and protection to the two local industries concerned now consists solely in Customs duties. The policy of protection is designed to ensure that New Zealand shall be self-supporting in the matter of this indispensable foodstuff. As the history of the last couple of years hae proved, that policy has failed. New Zealand is not growing enough for her own requirements. That, with the removal of embargoes, importations take the form of flour and not of wheat suggests that, should wheat growing disappear from the list of New Zealand' industries, flour-milling will also disappear. As a matter of fact, flour-millers, ffihave informed us that such wouldvce'rtainly be the case. Hardly a mill would remain in business to grist imported wheat. It can readily be understood that there should be a disposition among millers and wheat growers to come together in an effort to preserve both industries. The appearance of imported flour has brought them face to face with the seriousness of the position. The cause of its importation has been millers’ inability to get wheat at a price which would enable them to manufacture flour to compete with Australian flour. They had previously offered farmers prices which, though appearing remunerative to the ordinary man, did not fit in with the farmers’ ci/uception of “remunerative.” It is no secret that millers split on the pbipt of limiting themselves to prices at which fanners declined to sell. Consequently what flour is now being manufactured in Now Zealand is being gristed from wheat bought at above schedule prices, the loss on manufacture being regarded as a lesser evil than the loss . entailed by closing down and giving the market up to Australian exporters. Now, after discussions, first at Ashburton and later at Wellington, the proposal is to raise the price payable to farmers and lower the price charged for flour. It is a double attempt to delay the reliance of the dominion on imported foodstuffs until local supplies are exhausted and importation becomes absolutely necessary. It implies sacrifices on the part of the miller. It remains to bo seen whether the farmer will also make sacrifices—or what he deems to be such. His attitude has been that wheat is quoted at Ss 9d f.o.h. Sydney; that, with freight, wastage, and duty, it cannot be landed here at under 8s 4d ox wharf; and that therefore he should command a minimum of 8e per bushel for his wheat. Imported flour makes that impossible; therefore he advocates a renewal of the embargo on flous.

The Government’s latest declared attitude is not to reimpose that embargo. Representatives of fanners and millers have agreed to a raising of the schedule prices of wheat by sd; per bushel. The advance is more nominal than real. These higher rates have really been on offer for some time past, and have not been generally acceptable to farmers. The farmers’ representatives have undertaken to urge on their class as a whole the acceptance of them. Perhaps they will have some success now that tho Minister of Agriculture has been once more approached and the interview has ended without any mention of an embargo or higher duties on Australian flour. The arrangements which Cabinet has ratified may be read in another place in this issue. Presuming that tho farmers comply with them, the gristing of New Zealand wheat will go forward until supplies are exhausted, and then the Government will supply the millers with Australian wheat, which, if current prices hold, could be landed hero duty free at about 7s per bushel. If the arrangement holds, it may tide over the crisis temporarily. But there is the future to be considered. With the politician’s characteristic complacency, Mr Nos'worthy says; “Tho result of the meetings is, I think, a matter for congratulation. The farmers will receive prices sufficient to encourage them to increase the area in wheat.” Other authorities dispute this. Despite all the Government has done to encourage wheat growing in New Zealand, tho tendency is to sow decreasing areas in this cereal. At Ashburton this month a conference of growers passed a resolution that, “ unless something is done to assist wheat growers, the area in w'heat for 1926 -will be further substantially reduced.” Subsequently a speaker declared that the prices for wheat should be fixed “ on a Jair and equitable basis compared with other farm products.” That is really tho key to tho whole situation. Par mors are stating that cropping keeps them poor as compared with tho returns sheep would give them. Good authorities have told us that the only thing that would promote the sowing of an adequate area of wheat in New Zealand would be tho probability of high world prices for wheat, accompanied by a setback in prices for wool and frozen lamb. In its declared policy of making New Zealand self-supporting in the matter of wheat growing the Government has been combating powerful natural causes pulling tho reverse way. There aro undoubted advantages in such a policy, but its cost has been considerable and the purpose has not been achieved. Tho present position amounts to neither one thing nor tho other. Real statesmanship is needed to determine whether the policy should bo whole-heartedly pursued or discarded as unattainable except at a prohibitive price.