WHEAT PRICES

Otago Witness, Issue 3489, 25 January 1921, Page 13

WHEAT PRICES

GROWERS CONFER WITH MR NOSWORTHY. GOVERNMENT CONTROL DISCUSSED. MINISTER FAVOURS PROTECTIVE POLICY. CHRISTCHURCH, January 19. The Hon. W. Nos worthy (Minister of Agriculture) met representatives of the wheatgrowers from Canterbury, Otago, and Southland to-day, with the object of adjusting wheat prices for the present season, ana deciding upon a policy for the 19211922 season. Mr G. W. Lead’ey presided. Mr J. Talbot (Timaru) said that the attitude of the growers depended largely on the Government’s position. The question was m regard to dealing with the crop about to be harvested, and with the 1921-22 crop. The latter was the more important of the two. Ho gathered from a letter written by the Minister that it was contemplated to abandon Goveri'ment. control and to have a free market. If that policy were followed he was afraid that very little wheat would be grown. It was a delusion to think that a high duty could be placed on wheat as pressure would be brought on the Government not to put on a duty. In the past a duty on wheat had been a delusion and a snare. Government control was not generally wished for, but unless the Government gave some kind of guarantee, wheat-growing largely' would be a thing of the past. He eugg'ostod that the present guarantee should bo continued, and if that were done there would not bo the slightest risk of over-production. It was very desirable that New Zealand should produce enough wheat for it s own use. The best plan was for growers to meet after the conference and consider any offer the Government might make. The Minister said that the Government had kept its promises to growers in regard to both the present crop and the 1921-22 crop. The Government had not departed one iota from its arrangements. He was there to be absolutely straight and frank, and he would be so. He had undertaken to put through the House a duty equal to the duty imposed by Australia against New Zealand, tie had tried to get it through, but there had been opposition. He would still do his best again to get a duty equal to the Australian duty, to get a. free market for growers, and do away with Government control. If there had been a surplus of wheat this year it would have been kept in the country, but growers would have been paid the prices arranged for. 'There was nothing unfair in that. If New Zealand growers did not grow sufficient wheat the country would he. up against the serious position which would he created, as the public should not be dependent on shipping, and should not have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for what could be produced in the country. Tie would undertake that if an arrangement was carried out with the Government a permanent, protective duty could be imposed. He believed in free markets. The law of supply and demand governed everything, and he wished to get back to a protective policy. He could not state the maximum prices yet, because ho did not

know what the prices in Australia would iiO. On tho motion of Mr J. C. N. Grigg (Longbeaoh) the following committee wag appointed to meet the Minister next month to adjust the price of this season’s wheat! Messrs J. Stevenson (North Canterbury), H. F. Nicoll (Mid Canterbury) T. Trotter (South Canterbury), J. A. M’Pherson (Otago), representatives of Southland and the North Island to be appointed later. A motion that the present system of Government oontrol should be continued for the 1921-22 crop, provided a satisfactory minimum price was guaranteed, was lost by 28 votes to 19. __ I STATEMENT BY MR NOSWORTHY. CHRISTCHURCH, January 20. j Regarding Wednesday’s conference of representatives of the dominion’s wheatgrowers, the Hon. W. Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture) informed a reporter to-day that as a result of the conference it was his intention to discuss the question generally with the Prime Minister and the other j Ministers, and to put before them every aspect of the subject that had been brought beforo him by those present at the conference. Mr Nosworthy will also place before • his colleagues his views regarding the general outlook for another season. “I foel j very pica s, I with the efforts made by the ! far mew ui: ’ • adverse conditions—labour scarcity and .e high cost of everything that goes to stimulate production—in response to my appeal to grow wheat. Judging by the observations I made in the.districts in tho northern part of the South Island through which I travelled this week, and also during my visit to Otago and Southland, the i fanners have made a generous response to | my appeal.” CONFERENCE OF WHEATGROWERS. I COST OF THE LOAF. At the conference of wheatgrowers held in Christchurch on Wednesday over which the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Nosworthy, presided, a resolution was carried that the prices of wheat for the season 1921-22 be not fixed. A minimum prioe of 7s 3d, 7s 6d, and 7s 9d per bushel had already been fixed for this season’s crop, with a free market whereby the farmer catt obtain as much as he can, and with certain adjustments. A southern delegate, who was at the conference of farmers, was on Friday asked by one of our reporters to give his opinion of the discussion which took place. He said that the conference between the Minister and the growers would inevitably produce a luxuriant crop of criticism and controversy, both public and private. There was no matter on which the people were more sensitive than the price of the loaf, and the deliberations of the Christchurch conference brought the whole question into immediate and foreboding prominence. i * SUBSIDY TO FLOUR MILLERS. I During tho month ending in February, the wheat control provided, on the one hand, for a supply of wheat at fixed prices, and on the other, through a heavy subsidy to flour millers, it an.i..ciaily secured the supply of bread at what was comparatively a low price. The price of ’ bread was ‘’pegged,’’ and the Consolidated Fund paid for the pegging. In other words the pubiio paid one part of the price directly over tho baker’s counter, and the other part indirectly through taxation. The wheatgrower now asked for tho announcement of the adjustment prices for the present, harvest, and in addition he very | properly requires a statement of the Government’s intention in regard to next year’s crop. The conference had, therefore, two issues before it—firstly, the final fixation of prices for the present crop, and secondly the question whether the present system of control should be continued for the 13211922 season or not. ‘ ARRANGEMENTS AT THE CONFERENCE CRITICISED. Tho delegate said he could not compliment the authorities on the arrangement for the conference. Delegates representing largo wheat areas and important growers 1 associations found themselves alongsi do men who were there as private individuals, representing no interests but their own, ana all had the same voting power! It was understood that the Wheat Controller and the Minster were assisted by an Advisory Committee, but no statement was made by that committee for the guidance of the meeting, although some of its members were present by special invitation. No agenda paper had been prepared, and it was apparent that quite a large number of t.hoS present had been given no opportunity ot considering tho questions at issue, and, indeed, had a very hazy idea of what the conference was about. Under such circumstances the meeting naturally found itself in difficulties, and for some time little progress was made. As the atmosphere cleared it became apparent that the Minister in charge was the only speaker who had come there with any definite course of action in his mind, and whether that course was in the interests of the country or not remained tc bo seen. s SECRET CONFERENCE. It WSJ also aPDaren* that the hazinesa which pervaded the early part of the proceedings was duo to the fact that the arrangements between the Minister and wheatgrowets at a previous conference had not been previously made public. Handicapped by these faults in method and lapses in information, the conference then got down to business. A committee of si* growers was elected to wait on the Minister and the Controller in February in regard to the fixing of tho adjusted price for the Present crop, which is to be ascertained in tho manner laid down by the Government in July last. A DIVIDED OPINION. | On the second issue before the meeting

a resolution to control next year’s crop was negatived. On this point the meeting was far from unanimous. The Minister of Agriculture was evidently strongly impressed with the view, as the result of a conference in September last, that if a sufficiently high protective duty was imposed on imported wheat and flour the control might be removed and growers given a free market, and gave the meeting a strong lead in this direction. His views were not. however, shared by quite a number of speakers, who expressed serious doubt whether farmers would grow sufficient wheat under such an intangible arrangement. These delegates, many of whom represented important districts, were of opinion that a definite minimum price, subject to adjustment as at xnresent, was required in order to secure an adequate supply of New Zealand-grown wheat. PRICE OF TIIE LOAF IN 1922. 1 Evidently the dominion wheatgrower was a shy and wary bird, and required a very definite bait. The Minister, however, like most men who come with a definite plan of action to a meeting, halting between two opinions, secured a resolution in support of this policy of free wheat with a protective duty, it remained to be seen whether Cabinet would support his policy, and if they did, what the public would pay for the loaf in 1922.