WHEAT MARKETING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19961, 20 November 1934, Page 11

WHEAT MARKETING

To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir, —The fact that your correspondent “Observer” is a non-grower explains much of his letter, and is a point that will not be missed by growers in considering the views of apologist No. 1 for the Wheat Purchase Board, which he claims “is wholly responsible for the retention of the existing protective !

duty.” It would have been just as sensible for him to have told us that the Board is responsible for the sliding scale of wheat duties operating in Egypt, and that it is responsible for the wheat duties in practically every country in the world. When he states that the price in New Zealand is above “world parity,” he should remember, for instance, that the duty on wheat in Albania is 9/11 a bushel; Austria 5/10£; France Germany 10/4; Italy 6/lli; Turkey 4/9; while the English grower to-day is guaranteed 5/7, while thousands of bushels of good milling wheat have been sold locally at less than 3/6. The deciding factor in determining the local price should not be “world parity,” but what importations would cost if needed. Wheat could not have been landed in New Zealand at the price paid to growers, and “Observer” knows it. New Zealand is by no means the only country where the price paid to growers is above world parity; a position for which Parliament and Parliament alone is wholly responsible. “Observer” is evidently sorely pressed to justify the Wheat Purchase Board when he goes manufacturing red herrings.—l am, SOLID STRAW. To the Editor of " The Timaru Herald ’* Sir,—ln your issue of Saturday I notice a letter signed “Observer” in reply to the recent criticism of the Wheat Marketing Board. Well, sir, in the first place it was unnecessary for him to mention that he was not a wheat grower, as had he been experiencing the unpayable prices for wheat during the last two years he would not have spoken as he did. Secondly, I cannot understand his way of thinking. He admits that the price of wheat is not remunerative, and then says that we should have some regard for the difficulties of the Marketing Board, meaning that we should be quite satisfied and go on growing foheat at unremunerative prices. I fail to see any sense in this way of reasoning. It is just a sample of the nonsense we are having put across us. Wheat, he says, is above world parity, but the Marketing Board cannot take credit for that, as it was above world parity before the Marketing Board existed. The sliding scale- keeps it so. “Observer” quotes that the Board consists of four buyers, four sellers and one Government man (disinterested). Well we know there are four millers. This means four votes against the grower. Then the four farmers. Are we assured that these are four genuine wheatgrowers with no interest in the mills? Then the Government man, as chairman. Can we say that he will cast his vote in favour of the grower? Considering these facts, it i§ no wonder that the price of wheat is unpayable. If we had a majority of genuine wheatgrowers on the Board we might then expect to receive a payable price. “Observer” failed to answer the question as to why wheat a few years ago was 6/8 a bushel and bread 1/2 a loaf, and to-day wheat a little more than half that price and bread still 1/- a loaf. Also he states that the Board is acting in the interests of growers and consumers. I cannot see the millers doing that. If they had acted in the interests of growers the price would have been payable. If they had acted in the interests of consumers, bread would have been cheap. They must have acted in the interests of millers, as wheat is cheap and bread is dear. “Observer” states that the marketing of wheat is a tender point. Well I agree with him there, for as far as the wheat-grower is concerned it is a very ) tender point and is hurting badly. In fact, it will eventually cripple us altogether if things don’t improve soon. “Observer” speaks of the popular “catch cry” (or “cat’s cry”), “abolish the sliding scale.” This is another sample of the nonsense put across to frighten us. The Government knows too well that it cannot afford to allow the wheat industry to die out. The Government knows the unemployment that would be created if that happened. “Observer” also states that only a small proportion of the community is engaged in the wheat industry. I would remind him that the product of the wheat industry is the staff of life, and therefore interests more than only a small proportion of the community. To sum up, sir, I contend that after, two years’ experience of the Marketing Board as at present constituted, it has proved a failure and not in the interests of the grower but in the interests of the miller. Flour is still paying but wheat is not. I suggest sir, now that the opinions of several wheat-growers have been ventilated in your journal, that it would be greatly appreciated by all wheat-growers if the Farmers’ Union or Crown Tenants’ Association would bring this matter up for discussion at their next meetings.— I am, etc., FED UP. : i ' 1