District Member Makes Emphatic Protest Against New Fertiliser Position

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 92, 24 October 1947, Page 5

District Member Makes Emphatic Protest Against New Fertiliser Position

An emphatic protest against the recent cancellation of the free carriage of lime by rail up to a limit of 100 miles was made by Mr W. Sullivan in the House of Representatives. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr .Holland) had moved the adjournment of the House to enable the subject to be discussed. Mr Sullivan said he would prophesy that within two or three years there would be a considerable reduction in the volume of production unless a change was made, and it was with that view that the Leader of the Opposition had brought the matter before the House. The subsidy was introduced for the reason that the country as a whole, should assist in the building up of primary production, which in turn would build up the national wealth. The strongest possible case could be made for the permanent continuation of a subsidy on both lime and fertiliser in the interests of the country. The Minister of Finance had said that the free carriage of lime was originally introduced to help production. It followed, therefore, that if that assistance were cut out production must be injured.

“Again, the Minister of Finance said there were compensatory prices included to compensate the dairyman for his increased costs of fertiliser,” said Mr Sullivan. ‘That is arguable, but suppose we admit that that is the case: does it not follow that we are going to ask the dairy-

farmer to pay from £lO to £ls a ton delivered, for his fertiliser, and because of that very high price, irrespective of what he may be getting, he will shy off the purchase of fertiliser, and if he fails to use fertiliser, production must fall. There is no other answer to' it, and it is from that point of view that we want the Government to look at this matter in association with those inside the industry.”. “If we are to get the most from our land, if we are to break in and develop second-class land, of which there are thousands of acres in my territory, we must deliver cheap fertiliser and lime to our primary producers. If we -do not adjust our policy to meet the demands of the man on our second-class land I am certain that after two or three years we are going to suffer disastrously. I ask the Government to go into the matter again. We do not want to deal with it from a party political point of view; it is far too serious a matter to do that. I am sure that everybody must agree that the whole question should be reviewed and that further discussions should take place with the leaders of the industry so that a better scheme may be worked mut.” Evidence on the fertiliser subsidy question is being placed before a select committee the House this week.