WHEAT DUTY OPPOSED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 135, 20 March 1931, Page 2

WHEAT DUTY OPPOSED

“UNHEARD-OF INIQUITY." POULTRYMEN SEEK. ALTERATION (Special to “The Guardian.”) ■>. AUCKLAND, March 19. The views of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce upon the sliding scale of duties on wheat were laid before the Mr A. G. Lunn, who gave reasons why the chamber consistently opposed the method by which the duties are assessed.

The tariff on so important a commodity as wheat, said Mr Lunn, should be reasonable in amount. The import duties in New Zealand averaged 16 per cent. It seemed to him that a duty of Is per bushel on wheat would not lie unfair, but a sliding scale was an iniquity unheard of anywhere else in the world. In neither Canada nor the United States did the duties approach 100 per cent., as in New Zealand. Britain/ imported 80 per cent, of her wheat requirements, ‘but there a 4lb loaf was sold at ,‘Rd, compared with O.kl in New Zealaud,

Growers had undertaken in return . for special protection to produce enough wfieat for local consumption, but the Government were not carrying out their bargain. The Australian price was about 3s per bushel, and, in order to maintain the N'ew Zealand established price it would be necessary to charge 125 per cent, duty on any imports. The only conclusion . upon such a bargain was that it was .political. Poultrykeepers should put tlieir house in order and use their whole organisation to put pressure upon members of Parliament to have matters righted. He hoped Mr Forbes would treat the matter as a national and not a§ a political one. Ip was not fair that good milling wheat should be sold in Auckland for 6s 6d in fain quantities, . and 6s 9di in smaller lots, while poultrykeepers had been paying 7s to 8s for fowl wheat.

Mr J. N. McLean said that little could be hoped from a pool, which in 1929 had exported over 200,000 bushels at 4s and yet had charged Auckland poultrymen 7s 9d. The association unanimously carried a resolution asking the Government to allow the free importation of all food for stock purposes, now subject to duty*; alternatively; that the maximum duty on wheat for stock purposes should not exceed Is a bushel.

The mover contended* that the present duty was imposed when the world’s parity was approximately os 6d. Today, with parity at about 2s 6d, the original duty represented 50 per cent. Surely Is duty on a product worth 2s 6d was reasonable.