SUBSIDIES FOR PRODUCERS

Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1928, Page 1

SUBSIDIES FOR PRODUCERS

primary and secondary

(Self-Reliance). The Hon. 0. J. Hawkcn, the Ministter of Agriculture, spent a large part of the Christmas holidays—which were all too' short for one of the hardest worked members o" the Cabinet—in explaining to the good people of Egmont.the honcficient purpose and intrinsic value of subsidies, bounties, guarantees and other delectable things of the same kind that lay at the disposal of the Government. E-gmont being mainly a rural constituency it listened attentively and appreciatelv to the words of its representative in Parliament and doubtless reached the conclusion that all was well with the country and particularly well with the. Government. Air Hawkeu summarised his glad news in an interview with a representative of one of the local papers and in a single paragraph emphasised his views and presumably the views of other members of the Ministry, in regard to the encouragement of both primary and secondary industries. “My content ion always is,” the Minister said. “that, there should he no discrimination between town and country in the matter of Government assistance to industries. Primary and secondary industries should he treated alike, and if a bonus on pork and bacon export will build up the pigraising industry, then the expenditure by way of bonus will he warranted. All the figures go to prove that the farmers respond to encouragement of this nature, and if This is so then the experiment is well worth trying. The Government’s policy is to encourage both primary and secondary production for domestic use and for export, and, while there are some who fear over-production, yet. if we are prepared to compete with other countries, reasonable encouragement of production seems the only sound policy to pursue.”

That this really is the policy of tlr* Government, though not yet in full operation, may he judged from the tariff harrier erected against the importation of Australian wheat. the pork subsidy of £30,000 a year, to which the Government stands committed for three years and Ihe fruit guarantee, which may again involve the country in a loss of £BO.OOO or £90,00 as it did two years agn. The taxpayers who may he required to find a sum well on to half a million to secure the position of the wheat farmer, the pork raiser and the fruit growers, have no escape from their liability. The wheat duty is a certainty. Tt is collected hv the processes of producing, milling and baking until it filially reaches the consumer with a substantial increment upon The nineponce duty at every stage. As for the pork subsidy, there are indications that the Prime Minister already is regretting his impetuosity in inviting the President of tlie Farmers’ Union to renew his reouest, for Ibis concession. Tie has left himself no avenue of escape, hut at a nieo‘ing of represents!fives of the interests concerned the other day the Minister of Agriculture indicated that the subsidy would he paid only on porkers, small pigs, that, is, weighing up 1o eighty or ninety pounds. Bacoiiers will have In take their chance in tli" open market. The regular exporterare not greatly perturbed by this arrangement. They are, indeed, rather amused than otherwise by the Government’s effort to hold up prices. There has boon no abnormal drop in values, they say, but simply a return to the level prevailing previous to the embargo imposed upon Danish pork. The fruit industry, which seems likely to become a permanent charge upon the Consolidated Fund, this year lias a guarantee of 11s a ease for apples, which may run the State into an expenditure up to £IOO.OOO if the crop proves as abundant as it is reported to be.

Even if the Government '"'ill not listen to its casual critics in these matters, surely it will pay some attention to the opinion o( its most influential friends among the metropolitan press. “Mr Coates admits,” says the “New Zealand Herald” referring to the pork subsidy, “that it is hard to defend the subsidy in principle ; so hard that he does not attempt the task. All that he can suggest in its justification is that the Government has assisted fruitgrowers and the wheat industry by similar methods, so that starting from an unsound principle he has to resort to dangerous precedents as an excuse for a proceeding that has been condemned even Ivy those who will share in the distribution.” The “Otago Daily Times” roundly condemns the Government’s subsidising schemes and says “there are no reasons at all why the taxpayers should he required to subsidise the pork-growers.” The “Daily 'I imes goes on to quote with warm approval the outspoken denunciation of the independent “Evening Dost,” and not a single newspaper of consequence has attempted to excuse ttic Government’s spoon-feeding policy.