FERTILISER SACKS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 20 May 1941, Page 7

FERTILISER SACKS

INCREASED CHARGE MADE BY GOVERNMENT FARMERS EXPRESS STRONG RESENTMENT. REVERSION TO OLD SYSTEM DEMANDED. Strong resentment against the charge made by the Government on fertiliser sacks was expressed at the annual meeting of the Wairarapa Provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday afternoon. It was decided .to protest to the Government and to urge that the old system be reverted to. Mr R. W. Kebbell, chairman of the Alfredton branch, brought up the following recommendation from his branch: "That the executive enquire into the present unfair and iniquitous method of charging for fertiliser bags.” Mr Kebbell said the Government charged 16s a dozen on bags sent out. When returned as used they were sent out again for which they charged Ils. Some of the bags were so worn that they could not be returned, with a consequent loss to the farmer. He had returned 459 bags to the Agricultural Department out of 552 he had purchased. The Department rejected a further 19, making a total loss of 20 per cent. If the Government had to put the price up it should have charged an extra 5s or so per ton, sacks in. Mr J. L. Heckler said he had sent in 60 good bags to the Department for which he had received £1 3s Id. The position was ridiculous. He could not understand why branches other than Pahiatua had taken it “lying down.” “It boils down to another broken promise by the Government. We cannot make a strong enough protest,” stated Mr J. H. Bremner. Mr Nash, said Mr Bremner, had definitely promised that there would be no increase in the price of fertiliser when the guaranteed price was fixed. The Government subsidy of 2s 6d per sack to the manufacturers had been withdrawn. Owing to the exhorbitant charge on sacks the price had been increased from 5s to 8s a ton. Owing to import control the Department was working on old sacks, many of which were worn out. The Government had broken faith with the farmers. Farmers resented the “back door” method used in increasing the price of fertiliser. It was a burning question with all branches. Farmers naturally resented the increase in price but what created anger was the feeling that “one had been put across them.” The position was unfair. *’

Mr C. C. Jackson: “I sent in 102 sacks and got £3 10s for them. 1 have 360 sacks of fertiliser and cannot spread it owing to the labour shortage.” “We have been hammering at the Government to have the system altered,” observed Mr A. Linton, who said Mr Barclay had stated that the old method would be brought in again in the near future. The Meat Board, the Dairy Board, the Farmers' Union and others had made strong representations.

Mr A. W. Hutchings said he had received manure bags which were so worn that, they parted in the middle when he shifted them. Mr Linton moved the following motion: “That this meeting expresses strong disapproval with the procedure adopted in the sale of fertiliser and urges the Government to revert to the old system.” Mr Hugh Morrison seconded.

Mr Alex Ross said he wished to move an amendment that all present refrain from purchasing fertiliser until the Government altered the system. Mr Morrison: “You can’t do that!” Mr W. G. K. Wiggins seconded Mi J Ross’s amendment.

Mr J. C. Cooper raised a point of order. The chairman ruled the amendment out of order.

Mr A. Forsberg: “Mr Ross's amendment suggests coercion.” Mr Linton remarked in reply to a question that Mr Barclay was “in a tangle” with bag merchants. A voice: “He wouldn’t have much trouble in getting out of those bags.” Mr Linton’s motion was carried unanimously. Mr Ross’s amendment was put to the meeting as a separate motion and was declared lost on the voices.