THE WOOL BONUS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20917, 17 October 1942, Page 4

THE WOOL BONUS

RETENTION BY STATE CRITICISM IN HOUSE “A CRUEL INJUSTICE” (P.R.) WELLINGTON, this day. The proposal to retain ‘ a portion of the 15 per cent increase in wool prices granted by the British Government was strongly criticised in the House of Representatives to-day by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. S. G. Holland, who devoted the whole of his speech on the Finance Bill to that subject. There was an immense amount of discontent among wool producers over the Government’s attitude, said Mr. Holland. It was the farmers’, money, and they had no right to hold back 10 per cent of it. T „ Mr. J. A. Lee (Dem. Lab., Grey Lynn): Would you give the soldier an extra 15 per cent? Mr. Holland retorted that the 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 1 was no suggestion that any part of this money should be withheld Shearers’ wages were increased by 6d per 100 for every -id per lb. increase in wool ■ prices, and ihe growers had to pay in cash these higher rates on the 15 per cent increase. Farmers Will Not Strike Another cruel injustice was to withhold the higher price from the grower in respect to wool utilised by New Zealand manufacturers. This was 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 wool would not fall on the New Zealand consumer. To stabilise sugar prices and in other directions the Government had subsidised these coinmpdities 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 1 won’t strike;' but' at the first' opportunity they will deal with the Government which withholds their own money. 'Mr. W. J. Poison (Nat.. Stratford) said that the money was the property of the farmers or. the British Government. It was not the New Zealand Government’s money. If the farmer was riot to get l it •it should be ' paid back to Britain. Why should the woolgrowers be selected for victimise- i tion? They were marked out because they had no friends on the Government benches. The action of the Government' would do more than anything else to discredit New Zealand overseas. “Sheer Inflation” Replying, 'the Minister' of Marketing, the Hon. J. G.' Barclay,'said that the matter was the subject of negotiation at the present tim’d between the stabilisation commiittee 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 the 15 per cent increase was to safeguard Australia's sterling balance during the' war period. l Immediately the announcement 1 of the offer by the British Government was made he 1 made a-statement which he still stood by; and that was-that this was no reason why the New Zealand consumers should have to pay an increased ■ price for woollen • goods to enable the woolgrower to get his 15 per cent. Wage-'workers and‘others who had received 5 per cent rises and less would have to contribute. It means that either’- the - taxpayer or the consurflor in New Ze&lcUid would, hcive to pay 4 per cent to 5 per cent more for woollen'goods. About £200,000 would have to be found out of the consolidated fund.' To pay opt £2,500,000't0 the woolgrowers m New, Zealand was just sheer inflation, sard Mr. Barclay, because’ it was impossible to get an eXtra volume of goods to offset" this sufn. 1