PRICES FOR BARLEY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 281, 27 November 1936, Page 8

PRICES FOR BARLEY

-4. CANTERBURY COMPLAINT [ GROWERS “OUT IN THE COLD” I Per Press Association. J CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 25. "The way things are going now the i farmers will have to dig their toes in |or they w.ll lose control of the whole lof their business. There is a tendency ' not only in regard to barley but for I all forms of farm produce, to be con- | trolled by the State. In the case of 'oarley it*would seem that the buying | interests have been able to keep very j close to the Government during the consideration of prices while growers, I through not being able to keep a man constantly on the Minister’s doormat, | have not been consulted.” | The foregoing statement was made by the president, of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union (Mr. W. W. MulholI land > at to-day's meeting of the North Canterbury execut ve of that body, when the action of the Government in ■ fixing next year’s prices for malting barley was under review. I The Minister of Industries and Com|merce (Mr. D. G. Sullivan) had not | kept the promise he had given to the I barley growers, said Mr. R. T. McMillan. When approached on the subject I some time ago the Minister had given, |he said, an undertaking to the growers that they would be consulted before prices were fixed. Unfortunately that had not been done and to-day Canterbury growers were asked to accept a price which, strangely enough, was considerably lower, than that allowed in other districts. Th? prices as determined were as follows: Canterbury and North Otago 4s a bushel on trucks; Marlborough and Nelson 4s 3d in store; Hawea-Luggate district, 5s on trucks; Arrowtown-Frankton district. 5s on trucks; G.arston district, 4s 6d on trucks. At 4s, the price to Canterbury growers represented only 3d increase on last season, wh ch would not nearly meet the increased costs of production with which they had been saddled. He was at a loss to understand why Canterbury growers should be paid as much as Is less than the price conceded to some of the other districts. Clearly Canterbury growers had been left “right out in the cold,” concluded Mr. McMillan. The protests of Messrs. Mullholland and Mr. McMillan were endorsed by the meeting, which referred the whole matter to the union’s barley committee for consideration and report.