WOOL GROWERS’ GRIEVANCE

Evening Star, Issue 24328, 17 October 1942, Page 6

WOOL GROWERS’ GRIEVANCE

WITHHOLDING BRITAIN'S 15% PRICE INCREASE OPPOSITION CRITICAL (Special.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 17. , The proposal to retain a portion of the 15 per cent, increase in wool prices granted by the Britisli Government was strongly criticised in the House to-day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland), who devoted the whole of his speech on the Finance Bill to that subject. There was an immense amount of discontent among the wool producers over the Government’s attitude, said Mr Hid land. It" was the farmers’ money, and they bail no right to hold back 10 per cent, of it. Mr I .ee: Would you give the soldier an extra 15 per cent.? Mr Holland retorted that soldiers had received increases. He was always prepared to consider that subject. Wool prices were increased to compensate for higher production costs. Wage increases had been granted to other sections of the community, but there was no suggestion that any part of this money should be withheld. Shearers’ wages had been increased by Od for 100 for every Id per lb increase in wool prices, and the growers bad to pay these higher rate.-; on a 15 per cent, increase in cash. Another cruel injustice was to withhold the higher price from the grower in respect to wool utilised by New Zealand manufacturers—a grave abuse of other people’s money. He knew that the prices of woollen goods were stabilised in the Dominion, and it had been decided that the increased cost of the wool would not fall on the New Zealand consumer. To stabilise sugar prices and in other directions the Government had subsidised these commodities, and the same thing should be done for wool. A Government member: Will the farmers go' on strike? Mr Holland : They are loyal men and won’t strike, but at the first opportunity they will deal with a Government which withholds their own money. Mr Holland said that the money was the property of the farmers or the British Government. It was not the Government’s money. If the farmers were not to get it, it should be paid back to Britain. Why should the woolgrowers be selected for victimisation? They were marked out because they bad no friends on the Government benches. The action of the Government would do more than anything else to discredit New Zealand overseas. Mr Sullivan said the policy of stabilisation had been accepted by all parties in the country, and ho pointed out that up to the time when the 15 per cent, extra for wool was granted Iby the Imperial Government, ' the Sheopowners’ Federation had not asked I for any increase. The 15 per cent. [ “ came down out of the blue.” Mr Sullivan said that the aggregate private income of the country had increased from £186,000,000 in 1939 to I £230,000,000 in 1942 and the value of I the goods available for civil consumption had decreased in that period from '£135.000,000 to £85.000,000. The 1 Minister said he did not know whether the sheepowners and the Stablilisation Committee would be prepared to resume their negotiations after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which he thought was calculated to sabotage the agreement that was in prospect. “ This is a desperate attempt on the part of the -Opposition to get the goodwill of the people with substantial electoral war chests,” stated Mr Lee. Ho was, be continued, appalled at this exhibition of sheer greediness. If the Opposition had demanded ICO per cent, of the increase for the small farmer, with a limitation on income, he could have supported it, but at a moment when the nation was bleeding to death there was this outrageous plea for a subsidy to people who were the wealthiest iu the country. They were sabotaging the war effort. On Mr Speaker’s request, Mr Lee withdrew his last statement. Mr Poison intervened to explain that lie had suggested that tiie money should he paid to the people to whom it belonged—the British Government, or the farmer. Mr Lee retorted that this was patriotism at a price. Surely the farmer was not alone the producer of the value of the wool delivered in London. There were the seamen who risked their lives, and the men of the Navy, the airmen, and the soldiers who protected the land and goods. Replying, the Minister of Marketing, Mr Barclay, said that the matter was the subject of negotiation at the present time between . the Stabilisation Committee and the Government. He revealed in response to interjections from the Opposition, that He had received confidential information in Australia that one of the reasons for the 15 per cent, increase was to safeguard Australia’s sterling balance during the war period. Immediately tho announcement of the offer by the Britisli Government was made he made a statement which lie still stood by, and that was that this was no reason why tho Now Zealand consumers should have to pav an increased price for woollen goods to enable the woolgrowcr to get his 15 per cent. AVage workers and other who had received 5 per cent, rises and less would have to contribute. It meant that either the taxpayer or tho consumer in New Zealand would have to pay 4 per cent, to 5 per cent, more for woollen goods. About £200.000 would have to ho found out of the Consolidated Fund to pay out £2,500.000 to the woolgrowers in New Zealand. That was just sheer inflation, said Mr Barclay, because it was impossible to get an extra volume of goods to offset this sum.