THE WHEAT QUESTION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLIX, Issue 13908, 8 November 1919, Page 6

THE WHEAT QUESTION.

Tn the House a few days ago Mr E. P. Lee, M.P.. made some comments upon the wheat question. These were based upon a statement prepared by the Chairman of the Chamber of Com- 1 merce (Mr R. K. Ireland) and endorsed bv the Chamber,-as follows: — Referring to the discussion in Parliament of the Industries Committee report. Sir J. G. Ward (Hansard No. 6 page 486) states: "This country requires a little over 7,000,000 bushels of wheat a year. Under the guarantee by the Government of 6s 6d ' per bushel f.0.b., which was the final amount fixed, made to the wheat-growers of New Zealand, thev ha ve only produced some 6,000,000 bushels. This country had "had to buv in Australia over and above its own products to the amount of some 5,150,000 bushels in two years—l.lso.000 bushels in 1917 and 4,000,000 bushels in 1918.'"j Further. "I am speaking about the quantity, not the price. I said thatthe final price guaranteed was 6s 6d last year, and that the quantity required was short in New Zealand by some millions of bushels." This .statement has been circulated throughout New Zealand by Press Association message, and is calculated jto do the wheat-growing industry a great amount of harm by giving the public the impression that it does not pav New Zealand to grow wheat. We accept Sir J. G. Ward's figures that the country required some 7.000,000 bushels of wheat a year, but the New Zealand Gazette No. 96 shows that the wheat-yield for the Dominion in 1918-19 is 6.658.613 bushels, a shortage of approximately 400,000 bushels, not as Sir J. G. Ward states, a shortage of some milljons of bushels. In the previous year the yield for the Dominion (Gazette No. 96) was 6.807.536 bushels. We understand that the Government's intention in buying 4,000,000 bushels was to make up the shortage and to create a reserve or carry over—a most desirable tiling. Tile imports of Australian wheat to New Zealand this year are approximately 1,000.000 bushels, making a carry-over of 600.000 bushels, plus a further 2,000'.000 bushels lying in Australia. which will not he brought over until next vear.

In considering the question of giving up wheat-growing in New Zealand it is well that the public should consider what the industry means to the Dominion.

Take as a basis. Sir J. G. "Ward's opinion. (Hansard No 6jpage 487) that "our w heat-growers. Qjveri with a guarantee of os 6d per bushel, are fully entitled to get at least what it costs per bushel for imported wheat. Compare to-day's Australian price with the production of lambs, etc. . It takes about 270.000 acres to grow our wheat requirements at an average of 26 bushels per acre, and taking the value at the present- official Australian quotation. 8s per bushel f.0.1i.. plus freightand charges ]s per bushel, equals 9s per bushel lauded in New Zealand without duty, giving a gross return of £ll los per acre, and a total value of £;i.159,000.

Canterbury and North Otago wheatgrowing land, owing to climatic conditions are unsuitable for dairying 011 a large scale, but will carry on an average 1 v ewes'per acre. One hundred per cent of lambs at 25s per head with 8 lbs wool at Is 3d per lb. and. allowing charges and shipping profit 12s 6d, giving a gross return of £3, per acre on an annual export value- of £BIO,OOO. This is a gross return from the land in favor, of wheat to the extent of €2.349.000 per annum, and if the farmer could get this price there would be no doubt about getting sufficient wheat grown in New Zealand, but the Government's policy has had the effect of limiting the price the wheat-growers would otherwise have got. This may be good policy, but- it can be carried too far, as lor instance the Government guarantee for next year's crop os 6d, os 8(1. 5s lOd, with a free market. Last year the free market gave the grower 2d per bushel extra, and knowing that the maximum prices of bread and flour must be fixed, and that there can really be no free market for the wheat, many farmers decided that the reduction on the previous guarantee was not a fair thing and did not grow wheat. The result will be a short crop and a larger importation for 1920. Australian farmers are guaranteed :5s per bushel for next year,

which, with expenses, freight, etc., would cost 6s Brl at the '.mill, New Zealand without duty, even if Australia

was prepared to sell to us at cost price. Would it not have been better to have continued the guarantee of 6s 6d per bushel to New Zealand growers? We have been bewailing the drift of our young men to the North Island, yet if wheat-gspwing drops.out of our industries there will be less farm

work. A large proportion of the expenses in wheat-growing is wages, ploughing, sowing, harvesting, threshing, carting, handling in store and in shipping. The railway department also received a considerable revenue

from carrying wheat which would be lost if we import. The importations

would be in the form of flour, as the high prices obtainable in Australia for bran and pollard gives the Australian miller command of the. position, and this would increase the cost to New

Zealand hv over £250,000, with the prospect of getting very little bran and pollard unless we paid extreme prices. In times of drought Australia has bought pollard in New Zealand for over £lO ner ton.

It should not he necessary to explain

tlio danger of losing this important industry, hut its value is not generally known. Politicians generally will not handle the problem, because encouragement means higher prices, and may mean dearer bread. Yet we are gradu-

ally losing Jtlie industry, paying higher prices to Australia, helping thepi to the disadvantage of our workers, and helping to place the balance of the trade against ourselves. It is not a question of whether it navs the farmer better to grow slieep. but whether New ZealancT can afford to neglect an industry and import wheat worth on to-day's prices an anni'nl value of £3,159,000, replacing it with an industry showing an annual export value of £BIO,OOO.