THE WHEAT SUBSIDY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 7 June 1938, Page 10

THE WHEAT SUBSIDY

I GOVERNMENT’S HIGH COSTS POLICY j The Minister made a very strong ! claim about the expense of the wheat . subsidy of £179.000, which he says was money that was amazingly well spent. He then stated that the Government’s policy had made sure that the wheat l grower will grow the wheat we need for our requirements. It will. I think, be of interest if we examine the Minis- ■ tor's assertion a little more closely. The Government fixed the price ot wheat to the farmer, and it fixed the price of bread. The price paid to tha I farmer was 3d per bushel more than the price at which the same wheat was sold to the flour miller. This resulted in a loss of £179.000 to the Government, ; which, rather than pul up the price oi ; bread, decided to add to the burden !of the taxpayer to the extent ol i £179.000. J What I, and a great many other peo- ! pie. want to know is this: When the , Government commandeered the larmi ers' dairy produce, and sold it on the i London market, it made a loss of some ; 1 £300.000 in the process. The Government did not tax to make up that dei ficiency. but raised an overdraft from the Reserve Bank. If it works with butter and cheese, then why should the people be taxed in the case of a loss of £179.000 over wheat? I If it is right for butter, then it‘s right I for wheat. . j If it's wrong for wheat, then it’s ’ wrong for butter. ; | Last year, the Government increased [i the price for wheat by a further 6d a bushel, so the amount to be made up j in the next Budget will be over half a j million pounds. : Mr Nash says that the Government : j has made sure that the farmers will r grow enough wheat for our own re- , j quirements. If that is so, then Mr Nash .: should explain why we had to import I I from overseasBushels .For the year 1937, over ..... 1.500,000 i For the year 1936. less than 500.000 ' j Increased wheat importation. 1 1937 over 1938 1.009.000 Bushels. ? For 3 months ending March, - 1938. over 1.500.000 ' For 3 months ending Mart'll, 1 1937, only 39.000 Increased wheat importation for 3 months 1.461.000 For 15 months ending March, ; 1938 3.088.158 This is mostly caused by the Govern--1 ment’s high costs policy—the burden on the taxpayer 3 | PICOT BROS. 'j Mr Nash made an unjustified reflecI tion on one of my colleagues, and I am ' not going to allow it to pass without ] saying a word or two in his defence. Mr Nash stated in his Hutt broadcast , j tiiat it was at Masterton that another - National speaker maligned Mr Picot. * I the result of that malicious statement ! by him being an abject apology, and the payment of 350 guineas costs. J It so happens that I spoke at the • J same meeting as the member referred 1 | to. Mr S. G. Holland, the member for j Christchurch North, and what Mr Nash ; said about Mr Holland's speech is not true. He did riot malign Mr Picot. On ; the contrary, he went out of his way to say that he was not reflecting on Mr , Picot's integrity or personal character jin any way whatever. Mr Holland has i madc no apology, and has not paid one ! farthing costs. Mr Nash knows that i perfectly well. He is naturally anxious to avoid public attention being focussed ; j 0n the transaction for the purchase of ? Mr Picot's business, and the payment of £15.000 valueless goodwill, and £SOOO for bad debts, but he has no chance of ’ avoiding the question by attacking one ? ol our members, who has always kept ■ i his speeches above personalities.