PAMPERED WHEAT GROWERS.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 27 August 1930, Page 8

PAMPERED WHEAT GROWERS.

(To the Editor.) Dear Sir, —I notice iin the “Chronicle” of August 26th, under the heading “Wheat Duties,” a criticism of the Hon. E. Newman’s lecture at Levin by a contributor signing liimseilf {1 Truths, Not Platitudes.” “Tales for the Marines” might have suited the oeeasjion better as a pen-name. The Hon. E. Newman can well look after himself, and I hope others will attend to the pig breeder’s and dairyman’s point of view. “T. not P.’s” criticism is essentially weak relative to poultry, in that he is content to quote Mr Fawcett and to make a stray hit here and there on side issues, while overlooking the core of the matter. ‘‘ T. not P. ’ ’ assumes that, if it can be shown that profitable export cannot take place even with the duties on stock foods removed, then the case for the retaining of duties is won. That is a strange assumption indeed. In any case, if profitable export is problemat|icdf with wheat at 4s free of duty, it is certainly an utterly impossible proposition with wheat at 8s owing to Customs duty. Besides, with duty-free grain, and consequent reduction in local prices of eggs and grading, the New Zealand consumption of th|is, product would expand to at least three times its present extent, and therefore export would not be necessary, at any'rate for a few years. The essential point is: Is it equitqble or enlightened statesmanship to tax all existing or prospective stock-growing industries, and make export of their products absolutely impossible by dutties raising the cost of grain to double the world’s, parity, in order to protect a few wheat-growers? The answer is obvious. Personally I thank this critic for giving one an opportunity- to show the precarious nature of the ground under his feet. In other words, his contentions may pass as food for day-old chickens, but will not do foxadult roosters.. If egg and other exports arc to be discouraged because in his opinion they would not pay, then the wheat industry can be condemned at once for even sounder reasons.

(Ist) Because owing to adverse climatic conditions it grows too mucli damp and mouldy wheat. (2nd) Because the price .of wheat lands is far too high to compete successfully at world’s parity prices. (3rd) Because it can only export its best wheat at a heavy loss, which it has to make up by extortionate local prices for inferior wheat.

I believe the wheat interests look upon its recent heavjr export losses as a calamity, in the sense that it shows too clearly to the public the effects of unduly pampering an industry. Why does not “T. not P. ” ask Mr Fawcett to condemn such an inefficient and unpromising industry? The ease is much stronger against it x than he applies to other industries. At precent Auckland is paying 8s per bushel for its wheat, or, some 27s per sack, when wheat should not be above 15s (we are little better here), and the difference is the price the New Zealand stock-raiser pays for pampering a key industry, or trying to make a rivulet run uphil'.'l No stock-raising industry can develop or expand in New Zealand export or internal trade, while it has to carry this old man of the sea “Key Industry” on its back. I remain, Yours faithfully, H. LEGER, Weraroa, August 27.