Removal Of Fertiliser Subsidy Hardship For Back-Country Farms

Wanganui Chronicle, 10 June 1948, Page 4

Removal Of Fertiliser Subsidy Hardship For Back-Country Farms

(0.C.) Ohakune, June 9. “The Government calls lor more production and a greater larm output for Britain, but simultaneously pushes the price ol fertiliser up by the removal of the subsidy,” declared Mr. W. Sullivan, M.P. for Bay of Plenty, speaking at. a National Party meeting in Ohakune Junction last night.

“We set up a Hill Country Commission to tell us how to handle this class of country, but put superphosphate out of reach, This muddled management will cost the country dearly. Theorists may calculate the compensatory price, but in practice the man on higher hill country is at a severe disadvantage,” Mi 1 . Sullivan added. The Minister of Finance (Mr Nash) had a hand in abolishing fertiliser subsidy and was the man most responsible for the difficult position in which some farmers now found themselves.

During a debate in the House ot Representatives, the Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) talked of having 100,000 tons of superphosphates made available for distribution to classified land at a reduced price. He had said that the House appeared to be unanimous and that something should be done, but recent inquiries from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cullen) disclosed that nothing had been done. Apparently the question was “still under consideration.”

“Untold damage has been done to farmers on higher and lighter country, but no steps have been taken to correct the damage,” said Mr. Sullivan. “The National Party will arrange for cheaper superphosphate to the farmer. We look upon land maintenance and future development from the broader field of national welfare. It is easy to measure the cost of subsidy, but most difficult to measure what comes back to the country in increased production.”

In Australia a wider view was taken. This year the subsidy there would cost £3,875,000 and amounted to 75s per ton. In 1940-41 subsidies were removed, but were reinstated in 1941-42.

The same difficulties became appar ent in Australia, and the Government in the interests of the nation, had to restore the subsidy, said Mr. Sullivan.