RAGWORT AND SUBSIDY

Waipa Post, Volume 47, Issue 3359, 26 August 1933, Page 7

RAGWORT AND SUBSIDY

Sir, —Your reference to. the dangers of subsidiy can apply to the proposal that ragwort spraying should be subsidised. With this system there is the danger that inspections and system to guard against abuses will cost as much as the actual spraying not to mention the delays that result from officially • controlled subsidy schemes. I would suggest that the more direct method would be for the Government to make the sodium chlorate available at bedrock price" by cutting out all duty, sales tax etc., and supplying it at actual cosy. _ Those farmers' who cannot pay for "supplies at this figure to be all6wed>.f<o miake the cost a charge against the land. This would be fair to the "owner and to the mortgagee because even if it did imply a liability which the mortgagee would have to -honour,lis it not a fact that he would benefit by having his security cleared .of ragwort? A Government subsidy can be direct and imlmediate and fair to all if in the form of a removal of all taxes on supplies thus making the chlorate available at bare actual, cost. Such a scheme would cost nothing to administer and the benefit would bo immediately available for all.. The majority of farmers could pay outright 'but for the others a scheme of finance on the security of the land will enable a national attack on- this- costlfy weed pest.—l. am, etc.,.' ""1",'."".' .' . •: : SETTLER.