WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1931, Page 7

WELLINGTON TOPICS

THE WHEAT BOUNTY.

PRIME MINISTER’S DECISION

(Special Correspondent)

WELLINGTON, May 20

The Prime Minister’s emphatic refusal to budge by even as much as threepence a bushel in the “cut” to be imposed upon the wheat bounty the farmers have enjoyed lor a number of years has met with the warm apre-val df both the local papers. “Mr Forbes’s encounter with the Canterbury wheatgrower.s,” says the “Dominion,” “shows how hard it is to satisfy some people .... While producers of wool, meat, butter and cheese have no chance but to accept world parity, wheat growers continue to receive a magnificant premium on their crops, some of it taken in high prices for wheat, flour and breac’i from their fellow producers.” “During many years” declares the ‘‘Post,” “the community has been paying a toll on every loaf and a toll on every handful of grain, paying a shilling per bushel above world parity. The Prime Minister is seeking to reduce that toll, and lie has the country with him in that.” The evening paper concludes by assuring the wheat growers they still will enjoy good times under their reduced bounty.

the other side. In view of the congratulations offered the Prime Minister upon his daring it is interesting to see what the principal newspapers in Canterbury have to say concerning Ids adventure “The new scale of wheat and hour duties announced' to come into operation next season is a sore blow to the wheat industry in Canterbury,” says the “Christchurch Times”. . . “ihe farmers in general are in the worst depression they hayo experienced foi fifty years and this decision df the Government must add to tlicir trcubJ-

os. .. . If the wheat returns fai* the wheat growers also will fail.” The “Times” at least has the grace to look at the other side of the position. Its first admission is that “all the forecasts point to the probability of increased Soviet production and consequently depressed prices,” and its next that there is '“a universal demand for the reduction of the cost of living. Having admitted so much it hastens to say “these considerations by no moans reconcile us to the alteration,” and on consideration it is easy to sympathize with the embarrassment of a conscientious editor.

“LETTER METHOD.” The “Press” thinks a better way might have been employed in solving an extremely difficult problem.' '‘lnstead of a base price of os 6d a bushel) with a protective duty of Is 3d, "it states, “the farmer will get 4s 2d and have his protection lowered to sixpence. This is at least 7(1 n bushel less than the great majority of the farmers have been expecting, and very much less than it is necessary they should get if they are to continue to grow as much wheat as the Dominion requires. Hie change is ot course , subject to the sanction of Parliament and l there is some hope still that Parliament will refuse to agree to proposals which will put perhaps a third of the valuable wheat land out ol wheat production .... It is certainly a calamity the Government has been unable to think of no better ineth od of reducing the price of bread than by robbing the farmer and of no better method of restoring the national finances than by interfering with the only branch o'f farming that has been l-ciiisonably successful and secure. This of course is a party presentation of the position. NO INSULAR QUESTION.

Tlio idea that the wheat duties are a bone of contention merely between the North Island and the South Island is not borne out by facts. This was demonstrated at the annual meeting of the Chambers of Commeree, held in October last, when Mr A. C«. Limn, one cf the Auckland delegates, movccj “That there should be no extendon of existing agreements regarding wheat and flour, and that the duty on British Empire wheat and flour should be substantially revised down wards and the sliding scale abolished.” After a full debate the motion was rejected by eighty-four votes to thirtythree. The delegates from Dannevirke, F'oilding, Mastert n, Napier, Otaki, Te Awamutu, Wanganui, Wellington. and Marton, numbering thir.'y two North Island representatives, all voted against the remit and so single banded would have very nearly defeated the motion for its adoption. Air Forbes, a farmer and a wheat grower himself, took the view that in the circumstances his duty was to the community as a whole and not to the producer alone. This probably is the vi«w Parliament will take when it is asked for r. decision.