OUR WHEAT SUPPLIES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2797, 15 June 1916, Page 6

OUR WHEAT SUPPLIES

A DANGEROUS POSITION CULTURENEEDS ENCOURAGING The wheat supply of the Dominion was tho subject of some discussion in tho House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, and served to call forth from the Prime Minister an important review of the wheat-growing industry, and a warning that iho House would have to seriously consider the future outlook for tho country from the consumers' point of view. J , hiov , G - 1 2 1 Canterbury members stressed tho difficulties under which tho wheatgrowers wore labouring, and Mr. Talbot went so far as to declare that unless the Government gave adequate protection to the industry the production of wheat would descend to an unsafe level. Tho mcasuro of protection asked for by Mr. lalbot and others was an increased imy asainst Australian wheat and When the Prime Minister rose to speak ho created a mild sonsation by declaring that so far as he was able to judge the wheat supply ot tho country was one of the most serious problems that we had to deal with in the near future The reason was obvious, he said. All the indications and ho liad been watching the position very closely not only as a Minister of tho Crown, but also as an agriculturist—were that farmers were .inclined to give un wheat-growing, and raise something which was more profitable under the existing circumstances. He hnl SL f- on i lll one who had had practical experience of wheat nf°^n n ?i, Y aS tho leas t Profitable of all the products connected with airriTl l ere WM no "uestionth s.- Tho farmers were business men, and it was only human for them to desire to grow what paid-them best. Ho was bound to say Jhat, in spite of that, tor tho last year or two they had been particularly patriotic. AVhen they thought they would have been in difficulties for t ?®. 1 I V rlleat s'JPP'r. ho took the responsibility upon himself of asking the farmers to grow more wheat, and the response had boeii most satisfactory If it had not been so satisfactory the people o 'this country would have been in far worse case than they were. Unfortunately tho farmers had struck two very bad seasons. These dry- 'seasons cariio in cycles and unfortunately two had arrived in succession. Sufficient wheat, however was expected to meet our nest season's requirements, • It had been suggested, continued Mr. Massey, that the farmers should give up wheat-growing and raise something which would bo more profitable. This would mean.,that. Now Zealand would have to dopeml on Australia, In ordinary circumstances this would be all right, but unfortunately Australia was subject to periodic droughts, and when one of those came along New Zealand ifonld have to look to the Argentine, Canada, or even England for her supplies, while the expense would be enormous. Mr. Hornsby: It would pay you to guarantee them ss. a bushel for threo years.

Mr Massey: I say the problem will have to be taken into consideration whatever 'the decision might be. It is not only the farming community that would suffer if wheakgrowing were given up. Men would bo thrown out of employment. The poultry-farmer who already complained of tho dearness of his feed would' bo in greater difficulties, and would havo to look to Australia. Then what would be the position, of our millers? It was always easier to handle flour than wheat, and therefore Hour would bo imported in preference to wheat, and that inean't the closing down of our mills. All theso things had to bo taken into serious consideration. The Customs duty upon flour going into Australia was £2 10s. per ton, while into New Zealand it was iBl. Ho would not suggest that it should bo equalised—there was no opportunity for dealing with tariffs this session—but it was tho duty of Parliament to take the proper measures to enoourago the growing of wheat in this country, so that at' least wo should have sufficient wheat for our own requirements, whatever camo along. Mr. Anstey: What about a graduated tax to meet the special needs of each year?. Mr, Massey: That has been tried and abandoned. If the hon. member will read the history of the Corn Laws he will find that it was in vogue then, and was a failure. I do not know whether it would fail hero or not. At any rate, the whole question would' havo to be gone into. Mr. G. W. Forbes, who followed tho Prime Minister, agreed that the question was one of tho most important they had to deal with. The wheat-growers of Canterbury liad had a knockout blow last season. He had himself put in somo wheat on a share basis, but the experiment cost him jC2 an acre, and would not be repeated. He had received 4s. 3d. per bushelfor it, which the member for Dunedin North considered was a good price, but it was not a good nrice when the yield /was only 12 or 15 bushels an aero. Australia had gone in for the sys; tem of pooling wheat, and he thought our Government' would eventually have to take in hand the whole organisation of t.ho industry in the interests of tho people. Mr. Veitch' (Wanganui) declared that the last speaker was on .the right lines, but -first of all the Government should "get right on to the middleman, who was sweating both the [farmer and the consumer." (Hear, Mar.) If they took this in hand they would earn the gratitude |0f the whole people of New Zealand. To do this, however, the Prime Minister would have to do more than make apneals to the farmers or speeches in the House. ,