PRICE REGULATION AND WHEAT-GROWING

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2797, 15 June 1916, Page 4

PRICE REGULATION AND WHEAT-GROWING

The question of wheat cultivation in New Zealand was ■ discussed at some length in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. The matter is ono of national importance, and it was generally agreed that it' was necessary to placo wheat-growing on a more satisfactory footing. The point of view of the man who grows the wheat occasionally comes to light on such occasions, but seldom receives any serious attention from those amiable people who regard the State regulation of prices as a sure and simple for such increases in the cost .of living as may from time to time occur. It will be recalled that shortly after the beginning of the war the Peuie Minister appealed to the farmers to put ;i larger acreage under wheat. At the Same time there was an outcry against the price of flour and tbc Government purchased tho wheat abroad. There was also a demand for the' regulation of tho price of wheat and flour both here

and in Australia, and many simple people thought that such a regulation would safeguard tho future. The other side of' the question is now presenting itself with somo acuteness. If the farmer is to-'bo compelled to take the risk of bad seasons and of low prices without State compensation in the ease of loss, and is to be compelled to sell his crops at a. price below tho market value when prices are high, obviously wheat-growing is not an attractive proposition for the man on the land. Mil. Anstey, in the House of Representatives yesterday, suggested that a duty should bo placed on imported wheat in order to prevent the price from falling so low as the result of dumping as to make profitable production impossible, such duty to be removed as soon as the price rose beyond a certain point. The Prime Minister admitted that the present state of affairs was far from satisfactory, hut was not prepared to commit Himself to Mr. AnsteyV proposal. His attitude is easier to understand than tho absurd contention of the Labour member from Dunedin, Mr. Walker, who urged that it was unpatriotic for farmers to ask for protection so far as wheat production is concerned. It is no more, unpatriotic for farmers to ask for protection if it is required tc enable them to make wheat production pay than it is for bootmakers to ask for protection against imported boots. Why should farmers bo expected to grow wheat at a loss in order that the rest of the community may be supplied with cheap bread ? We do not, of course, suggest that wheat cannot be grown at a profit in New Zealand without the help of a protective tariff. What we do say, however, is that attempts to arbitrarily fix prices by artificial means which ignore the factors of demand and supply are bound to react on the community in somo way. The bootmaker will not continue to make boots at a price that does not pay or does not yield hirn as' much as he can secure from making something else than boots; and the farmer will not devote his energies to the growing of wheat when in addition to the' ordinary season and market risks he is faced with the possibility of State interference with market prices to his detriment. Wheat growing is desirable, and may be regarded as necessary to the Dominion. In the circumstances it is curious that so many of our politicians are ready to discourage rather than encourage the farmer to extend his enterprise in this branch of farm work.