THE WHEAT PROBLEM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17883, 31 August 1918, Page 8

THE WHEAT PROBLEM.

There is little room for argument concerning Mr Kaye’s statement to the Chamber of Commerce last night that a country like New Zealand should bo iu a position to produce enough wheat to satisfy its own requirements. The dangors of entire dependence upon other countries for 'our bread supply are too well known to need discussion, but it is also a fact that tho consumer has a right to be considered in the determination of the lengths to which the Government shall go in providing encouragement for the maintenance of local production. After all it is tho consumer who must foot tho bill, and it is obvious that he will not aocept any system or degree of encouragement when it is clear that the localproduction of wheat is being too dearly bought. \‘ On the other hand, the wheat-grower cannot be expected to sacrifice himself. It is unreasonable, as Mr Hewlett suggested last night, to expect the farmer to continue, year after year, growing wheat at a serious loss to himself. He has the right to ask that if he is to grow wheat to meet his country’s needs ho shall ho permitted to make from it profits comparable with those which he might expect if ho used his land for other purposes. Where his market is unrestricted ho is able to take advantage of tho adjustments that arise from the operations of supply and demand, but when tho Government steps in and limits bis output to a particular market at a particular price, he is not unreasonable in asking t-hat the price shall return him a fair profit. Mr Kaye suggested that the solution of the difficulty is to be found in the Government interfering as little as possible. To a certain extent this may be true. Wo agree that tho farmers are entitled to as much freedom as possible in tho accomplishment of their tasks, but where, in the interests of tbe grower, the- Government restricts by tariffs or other means, tho importation of wheat from other countries, it has imposed! upon it the .responsibility of ensuring that the prices of tho locally-grown product are kept within reasonable limits. In other words, it must bo satisfied that tho protection, of course taking tno value of the industry into consideration, is not over-expensive. Having interfered in one direction, the Government certainly has a right and a duty to interfere in the other if necessary. We axe inclined to think that one of the main causes of the trouble is the .manner in which the Government carries out its duty. The Government’s interference in the wheat question has certainly been spasmodic and unscientific. Its importations have been costly to the country, though it can plead' that the expense in 'tli© circumstances was unavoidable, because it bad 'to maintain the wheat stocks in tho country, hut if its intention was admirable its actual performance was open to grave criticism. And it is true that it Ignored very reasonable requests - from some of the growers. In the absence of definite information from the Government regarding its intentions for the future, for instance, the wheat-growers are not without ground for complaint,, and it is not surprising to find them giving evidence of anxiety. They want .to know whether or not they can ho justified in preparing their lands for wheat. It seems to us that the Government at this stage has not taken the wheat-growers sufficiently into its confidence. The farmers should not be left a prey to doubt. They should feel satisfied that their difficulties are appreciated, and that tho authorities, while asking them to sow their lands in wheat, are not going to mmee their burden any heavier than it must necessarily he in these unnsually difficult times.