WHEAT QUESTION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19308, 8 October 1932, Page 22

WHEAT QUESTION

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM. A further letter from the Minister for Industries and Commerce, the Hon. R. Masters, on the Australian wheat purchase, was read at a meeting of the council of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. The letter was in reply to the criticism directed by the secretary of the Chamber, Dr. E. P. Neale, while visiting Melbourne, against the price paid and the procedure adopted. “I understand that the essential facts in regard to the price and quality of wheat available in Australia at the time of purchase by the Wheat Marketing Agency Company, Limited — not by the Government, as stated by you—vere known to the gentlemen who attended to the matter of purchase,” the Minister wrote. “Your Chamber has undertaken, without accurate knowledge of the facts, tu criticise publicly the action of gentlemen who have had lengthy experience of the wheat market, and it can only be assumed that your Chamber is critical of their business ability. As I have personally no doubt upon this point, and as the information which your secretary has derived from his visit to Melbourne has not added anyIhing cf importance to the facts already known. I do not consider that the matter calls for further action or comment on my part.” A copy of a reply sent by the president, Mr A. M. Seaman, was also read It accepted correction on the question of purchase by the Government, and continued: “I regret, however, that you did not see fit to deal with the points we raised, for if the position is as unexceptionable as your letter would indicate. I should have imagined that it would have been the best policy to give the public the fact, and refute the substance of the allegations that were made by the importers’ section of this Chamber at the time of purchase.” Regarding the circular letter sent to members of Parliament some weeks ago, outlining the case against the present wheat duties. Mr Seaman said that a number of replies had been received. In general, the writers showed complete unwillingness to face the facts or their letters indicated that they had either not studied the Chamber’s arguments or were unable to understand th e m.