SUBSIDIES FOR PRODUCERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20310, 19 January 1928, Page 10

SUBSIDIES FOR PRODUCERS.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY. By Self-Reliance. Mr 0. J. Hawken, the Minister o; Agriculture, spent a large part of the, Christmas holidays—which were all too short for one of the hardest worked members of the Cabinet —in explaining to the good people of Egmont the beneficent purpose and intrinsic value of subsidies, bounties guarantees, and other delectable things of the same kind that lay at the disposal of the Government. Egmont being mainly a rural constituency, it lis- | toned attentively and appreciatively to the words of its representative in Parliament, and doubtless reached the conclusion that all was well with the country, ana particularly well with the Government. Mr Hawke summarised his glad news in an interview with a representative of one of the local papers and in a single paragraph emphasised his views, and presumably the views of other members ->f the Ministry, in regard to the encouragement of both primary and secondary industries. “ My contention always is,” the Minister said, “ that there should be no discrimination between town and country in the matter of Government assistance to industries Primary and secondary industries should be treated alike, and if a bonus on pork and bacon export will build up the pig-raising industry then the expenditure by way of bonus will be warranted. All"the figures go to prove that the farmers respond to encouragement of this nature, and if this is so then the experiment is well worth trying. The Government’s policy is to encourage both primary and secondary production for domestic use and for export, and, while there are some who fear over-production, yet, if we are prepared to compete with other countries, reasonable encouragement of production seems the only sound policy to pursue.” That this really is the policy of the Government, though not yet in full operation, may be judged from the tariff barrier erected against the importation of Australian wheat, the pork subsidy of £30,000 a year, to which the Government stands committed for three years, and the fruit guarantee, which may again involve the country in a loss of £BO,OOO or £90,000 as it did two years ago. The taxpayers, who may be required to find a sum well on to £500,000. to secure the position jf the wheat farmer, the pork raiser, and the fruit growers, have no escape from their , liability. The wheat duty is a certainty It is collected by the process of producing, milling, and baking until it finally reaches the consumer with a substantial increment upon the 9d duty at every stage. As for the pork subsidy, there are indications that the Prime Minister already is regretting his impetuosity in inviting the president of the Farmers’ Union to renew his request for this concession. He has left himself no avenue of escape, but at a meeting of representatives of the interests concerned the other day the Minister of Agriculture indicated that the , subsidy would be paid only on porkers—small pigs, that is, weighing up to 801 b or 901 b. Baconers will have to take their chance in the open market. The regular exporters are not greatly perturbed by this arrangement. They are, indeed, rather amused than otherwise by the Government’s effort to hold up prices. There has been no abnormal drop in values, they say, but simply a return to the level prevailing previous to the embargo imposed upon Danish pork. The fruit industry, which seems likely to become a permanent charge upon the Consolidated Fund, this year has a guarantee of 11s a case for apples, which may run the State into an expenditure up to £IOO,OOO if the crop proves as abundant as it is reported to be. Even if the Government will not listen to its casual critics in these matters, surely it will pay soipe attention to the opinions of its most influential friends among the metropolitan press. “Mr Coates admits,” says thef New Zealand Herald, referring to the pork subsidy, ‘‘ that it is hard to defend the subsidy in principle; so hard that he docs not attempt the task. All that he can suggest in its justification is that the Government has assisted fruitgrowers and the wheat industry by similar methods, so that starting from an unsound principle he has to resort to dangerous precedents as an excuse for a proceeding that has been condemned even by those who will share in the distribution.” The Otago Daily Times roundly condemns the Government’s subsidising schemes, and says “ there are no reasons at all why the taxpayers should be required to subsidise the pork grower.” The Daily Times goes on to quote with warm approval the outspoken denunciation of the independent Evening Post, and not a single newspaper of consequence has attempted to excuse the Government's spoon-feeding ' policy.