WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 11 January 1926, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

SECONDARY INDUSTRIES. ENCOURAGEMENT REQUIRED. (Special to “ Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, January 8. There is a growing feeling here that many of the secondary industries of the Dominion aro not receiving the en(ouragement they should from either the public or the Government. The primary industries for the time being seem to be occupying the whole attention of Ministers, dairying, wheatgrowing. fruit production, and other activities immediately concerning the men on the land certainly having nothing to complain of on this score. All of them. Indeed, in the opinion of the people who (Jo not profit by the Governments’ solicitude for the farmer, are being more or less pampered at the expense of the consumers. The wheat, duties, subsidies, controls, embargoes and the rest are counted as positive scandals by tliese critics, and the nursing of dairying and fruit production is regard with no more favour. As an example of what is going on the criteis compare what they call the

scurvy treatment meted out to the snwmiriiiig industry with the favours showered upon the farmers and

orchardists. The sawmillers are assisted through the Customs Tariff by a paltry duty of some 2 per cent upon imported timber, while the. farmers and orchardists, if they are not made secure by an absolute embargo against, importations, are equally secure behind an import duty of 25 per cent or more. This is a particularly flagrant case of perverted discrimination which is being brought under the notice of the Government. A POUND Ob' BUTTER. .Mr Herman Seifert’s spirited indictment of the Dairy Control Board, which appears to have been widely distributed. is the subject of a good deal of comment in the city. The point attracting most attention is Mr Seifert’s suggestion that the Board should take steps to remove the suspicion prevailing at Home that the New Zealand producer is out to unfairly exploit the English consumer. Mr Seifert implies that this charge could lie easily refuted by shewing the cost of producing a pound of butter in this country, hut he provides no data upon which the necessary calculation should he based. The only precise information available on this subject is contained in the report which Mr W. H. Singleton, the Director of the Dairy Division of the Department of Agriculture, submitted to a Parliamentary Committee some three or four years ago. This report’ showed that the keep of a cow for a year on the average ran into .£l2 7s 2d—Air Singleton always is precise—and that if a herd averaged lfiOlbs of butter fat the cost of this return was 18.5 pence per pound. If the average was ISOIbs the cost was 10.5 pence per pound ; if 20ftlhs, 14.8 pence per pound ; and if 2201b5, 13.5 pence per pound. With these figures to proceed upon the cost of producing a single pound of butter, at the particular period to which they refer, will not he difficult to ascertain. AIENACE OK THE POOL. The “ Post.” taking as its text the impending conference of representatives of co-operative wheat pools in Canada, United States and Australia, voices a thought that has been in the m.ii:ds of many observant people lately. “ It. is very difficult.” it says, after reviewing I lit; position, “to see the dilference between some of these co-operative control schemes, notwithstanding their legal status, and commercial trusts, pools and combines. All have the same objective. But what does section 5 of our own Commercial Trust Act. 1010. clearly state ? To monopolise wholly or parl-iallv the .supply or demand or any part thereof of aiiv goods or to control wholly or

partially their part thereof of any goods or to control wholly or partially their denvind or supply or price is an offence. Rigidly so. Where, then, is the difference between the farmer producers pooling and controlling any one of the prime necessaries of life, and groups of manufacturers or merehauls doing the like with, possibly, something far less important than foodstuffs? The day s nearer Ilian some British Dominions Government appear to he aware when they will have to control the- co-operative producer—controllers ol the necessaries of life.” All this is very suggestive. People are asking how the Wheat Control Board and the' Butter Control Boe.rd stand in regard to the existing- law, and no one appears to he provided with an immediate answer. WHEAT AND FLOUR. Ihe -Minister of Agriculture made another announcement yesterday in regnid to the. importance of wheat and flour in the immediate future, which is certainly a little more cryptic .than its numerous predecessors. “ Notwithstanding the recently gazetted prohibition of importation,” tbe first paragraph of the announcement runs, “general permission is granted for the importation of wheat, flour, wheat-meal and ground wheat, if imported on or after January 18th.” Then there arc conditions, ft must he shown to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs that the imports had been ordered from abroad not*tatcr than January 17 and that they were imported into New Zealand not later than January 31st. I02(i. Further they must pay the ordinary duties and they must comply with the regulations under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Apparently the announcement Is meant to meet the ease of importers who have been unable to secure shipping space for their earlier purchases in Australia, hut it also seems to open the way to further purchases being made provided the importer takes the risk of his goods reaching the Dominion before the end of the current month. What will happen if a cargo crosses the three-mile limit line ten minutes behind the days of grace is not indicated, but probably some allowance would be made. The whole business of the Government control appears to be a vacillating measure of compromise.