THE WHEAT QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18308, 19 January 1920, Page 6

THE WHEAT QUESTION.

No doubt the first effect upon the public mind of the news that the price of wheat has been fixed at 7s 8d a bushel will be one of relief that the figure is not higher. We think it is high enough, for that matter, but somo extravagant suggestions had been thrpwn out, apparently aa “feelers,” prior to the conference last Saturday, and we had feared that Mr Massey would have been over-indulgent to the producers. Tho subject is not an easy one to handle. Wheat-growing used to pay quite well at half the return now guaranteed by the Government, and without any guarantee at all, but conditions have changed, the most important alterations being the increased cost of production and the enhanced profits obtainable from other kinds of farming. Had . the Government been wise enough and courageous enough in the early days of the war it could have prevented a great deal of subsequent trouble and a great deal of profiteering in regard to primary products, but values were permitted to rise very rapidly, and, as everybody knows, both Reform Government and the National Government—and the Parliament which could have controlled the Cabinet —refused to tax war profits. The wheat-grower is entitled to have his product valued on a parity/with meat,

wool, cheese, and so forth; and, of course, there is the increased cost of production, which is very largely the result of conditions which the Government could have controlled but did not. Hence, by comparison -with other things, we suppose that 7a 3d is not an extravagant prico to allow per bushel of wheat. The publio would, however, like to know the lines upon which the discussion proceeded on Saturday. Mr David Jones, M.P., like the good Conservative that he is, took a high-handed attitude on the question of publicity. It Beema to have been decided at a preliminary gathering that the reporters should be excluded, and Mr Jones refused to accept a motion by Mr George Witty, M.P., that the conference should he open to the Press, holding that “ it was purely a. matter of business between the farmers and the Government.” Our view is that the public has rights in the matter. The Prime Minister evidently shares this opinion, for ho told the conference that “ he was there to discuss with them an important question—important to them, important to him as head of the Government, and important to the people of the country.” We can imagine that the presence of reporters would have been'considered irksome by some of those concerned, but really tho public interests are not generally well served by secrecy. However, since the price fixed at tho conference is not anything like so high as might have been feared, tho conclusion is suggested that Mr Massey did his part as the representative of the people. There will, we suppose, b© an increase in the price of bread—unless the Government continues and enlarges the “policy” of paying out subsidies from the Consolidated Fund in order to keep down the nominal price of the loaf. We sincerely hope that this policy will be criticised and opposed by the new Parliament, when, the occasion arises, for it is absolutely had, morally and economically. Moreover, it does not reduce the price of bread—it only pretends to do so.