SPREADING RAGWORT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 431, 16 January 1933, Page 4

SPREADING RAGWORT

The attitiide of casual apathy adopted by the Governmeftt toward the task of controlling ragwort remains a constant and inexplicable puzzle to all those who are alive to the serious menace j of the pest. Spring growth and seeding time arrive ' year after year and there is still a j complete absence of anything approaching a comprehensive plan of operations. The member for Rotorua, Mr. C. H. Clinkard, recently touched upon this ques-

tion in a letter to the "Morning Post," and pointed out that there were "only four or five members, including the Minister for Agriculture" who appreciated the danger. It looks very much as if Mr. Clinkard will have to strike the Minister off his list if that gentleman is to be judged by reeent statements. In the course of a letter to a Taranaki local body he is reported to have said that the Government appreciated the difiiculties with which farmers were at present confronted and that it was anxious to assist as far as circumatances would pe^mit, but having got that far he proceeds to show how little the Government is actually prepared to do. Continuing he said the position had been discussed with the Unemployment Boarjd, which, was I quite willing that unemployed laJ bour should be temporarily diverted to ragwort destruction ! work but neither it nor the Gov- : ernment was able to make any I contribution towards the cost of j transport or the purchase of weed destroying agents, such as sodium chlorate. The worth of such a concession is not har.d to appreciate. It means that the Government is not prepared to contribute one penny piece toward the cost of fighting one of the gravest dangers the agriculturalists in this country have to face. The permission to use unemployed labour is worth nothing unless it is backed up by some comprehensive effort. The Government stands to lose nothing by transferring a few hundred men from unprofitable work to something which is nothing more or less than safeguard-

ing one of our national assets — primary production. The refusal to provide sodium chlorate or help with transport plainly shows that the Government has no understanding of the true position otherwise it would not hesitate to strain its resources to the utmost to combat the danger. The paragraph quoted in Mr. Clinkard's letter is worth repeating : "I may have to walk out. There is no doubt about the sodium chlorate killing the pest, but there is no money to buy it and I am> only one of many." Throughout the country farmers are in a like position, and many through no fault of their own. Yet all the Government can do is to assure them that the cost of sodium chlorate has been investigated by the accountants of the Department of Industries and Commerce who reported that no undue proht was being made and even if the Government was to import anc. distribute, a course of action which it was unable to adopt, it was improbable that any appreciable reduction in cost could be brought about. The point which the Minister for Agriculture appears to have overlooked altogether is not the difference of a few shillings a hundredweight in the price of sodium chlorate, but the fact that very few farmers have got the money to buy any at all whatever the price. If the position had been thoroughly realised the Government coulc. easily have made arrangements to advance the necessary money to buy destructive agents and let the unemployed get on with a iolwhiclww^^