THE RATIONING OF FERTILISERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 221, 19 September 1941, Page 6

THE RATIONING OF FERTILISERS

REASONS FOR QUOTA MINISTER’S EXPLANATION (Press Assn.) Wellington, Sept. 18. The rationing of phosphatic fertilisers was discussed by the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. J. G. Barclay, at the New Zealand Dairy Board Conference in Wellington to-day. Mr. A. J. Sinclair, Te Awamutu, asked the Minister to inform the conference "why the restriction on the New Zealand farmer, to 40 per cent, of his average annual requirements over the past two years, for topdressing grasslands, is so much more severe than that imposed on the Australian farmer, who is obtaining his normal requirements at the present time, and is being asked to consider only a slight restriction to 70 per cent, of his annual requirements tn the immediate future. Further, can the Government give an assurance that everything possible is being done to get increased supplies of fertilisers in this country?” The Minister said that under the British Phosphate Commission's charter New Zealand received 16 per cent, and Australia and the United Kingdom each 42 per cent, of the output. When the United Kingdom did not require all its quota. New Zealand would receive 16-58 and Australia 42-58 of the balance, which would give New Zealand approximately 27 per cent, of the total output. When it had become apparent that some restriction would be necessary, the Commission decided to divide the phosphate available between Australia and New Zealand, on a basis of the average deliveries during the three years preceding June, 1940. The division arrived at provided for New Zealand to procure 37 per cent, ot the total supply. Actually that percentage was being bettered in current deliveries taking place to New Zealand.

It was recognised by the Commission that whenever feasible New Zealand should obtain the best possible treatment. New Zealand utilisation had been increasing during recent years, while in Australia the tendency had been toward a reduction in consumption.

As a result of a quota being placed on the delivery of rock, it had become necessary to limit the usage. Had Australian primary producers been able to continue with a full production programme, particularly ot grain crops, their restriction would have been as severe as that in New ZeaI land. As it was. dairymen were able Ito obtain reasonable quantities, bej cause of a shrinkage ot demand from i other sections of producers. i Everything possible was being done ' to ensure maximum deliveries of the I rock to New Zealand. The quota on phosphatic fertilisers and the meat crisis had been the most difficult | things the Government had had to | face up to. “I know it is difficult and that there are cases of hardship, any amount of them,” said the Minister. “We cannot tell what the position will be next month. If there is any surplus the industry will get it We are not trying to sit on big reserves.”