WHEAT PROTECTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 262, 5 November 1931, Page 3

WHEAT PROTECTION.

' REDUCTION IN DUTIES.

HOSTILE AMENDMENT

"BOUNTY FROM POORER PEOPLE."

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

Protection for the New Zealand wheat grower was a prominent topic during the debate on .the Customs Bill in the House last night. The Minister of Customs, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, reminded the House that when the sliding scale was first passed, in 1927, he said that the Government's policy was that New Zealand should, if possible, grow sufficient wheat for its own requirements, so that the essential staple food should be independent of outside supplies. On the other'hand it was desirable that the price of bread should remain within reasonable limits..

Since a Parliamentary Committee had again recommended the maintenance of protection, there had been a general fall of prices, but the sliding scale was of such a nature as would enable alterations to be made without the principle. It 'was proposed, as from March 1, 1932, to reduce the duty on wheat by 1/1 a bushel, and that on flour by £2 8/ a ton. The object of these reductions was to enable the grower to receive a reasonable price for his crop, and to ensure that the prices of flour and bread to the consumer were brought down and that poultry farmers and other users of wheat for feeding stock should be able to _ obtain their requirements at a lower price. The new duties had been calculated on such a basis that the grower should receive an all-round price for his .1931-32 crop of wheat, tuscan variety, of about 4/6 a bushel, f.o.b. country stations, sacks extra.

Price Not Guaranteed. "But," said Mr. Stewart, "the sliding scale does not purport to guarantee any price to the grower for his crop. . No such guarantee can possibly be given. Although the duty on flour has been reduced by £2 8/ a ton, it is expected that as from the date of the lower duties the price of locally-produced flour will be reduced by £2 18/ a ton. In this connection I would like to repeat a statement made by the Prime Minister in July, that if this reduction is not made the Government will, unless unanswerable reasons can be advanced, take steps to see that the reduction is enforced." "Dangers Either Way." "I wonder if those who wish to have the wheat duties abolished have fully investigated the position," said Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West), who contended that wiping out the tariff would not solve the problem. It was easy to say how much less wheat could be imported for and flour produced, other things being equal, but the position was not so simple on analysis. Immediately farmers who were now producing wheat went out of action what they had been receiving would be transferred to wheat importers and distributors. To give the, consumers the benefit of the abolition of duties, it would be necessary for. the House simultaneously to make provision for Government supervision, if not absolute State control, of the importation and distribution as well as the grinding of wheat for public consumption. Mr. A. J. Stall worthy (United, Eden): What safeguards have we under the present duties? Mr. Savage: Frankly, not many, but we should have some. We should not only sea to it that wheat is produced at lowest cost, but supplied to the public at lowest cost. I don't agree that the producers of wheat are the ones who are getting away with the greatest part of the swag. I think it goes to other interests after the wheat leaves the farm. Whether we have wheat duties or not there is still a responsibility in front of us. We have adequate machinery for properly controlling prices, and it should be put into operation. Move To Postpone Bill. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) declared that New Zealand was becoming overwhelmed by high Customs duties, and the Collector of Customs had told the Inter-party Conference that the duties were altogether too high, from the point of view of revenue collection. He (Mr. Wilkinson) considered that the reduction in the wheat and flour duties was very small indeed, after four years of persistent .agitation, The wheat grower was being maintained on a bounty from people poorer than himself. Mr. J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton): That applies to all dijties. Mr. Wilkinson concluded by moving that the bill be postponed, to enable the Government to consider the direful effects of the wheat and flour duties ,and their effect on the price of bread. Amendments Rejected. Subsequent speakers waxed eloquent, and for the remainder- of the second reading debate, the question of wheat duties monopolised attention. The discussion continued until 2.30 a.m., when a division was reached on Mr. Wilkinson's amendment, which was rejected by 50 votes to 10.

Interest flagged in the committee stages of the bill, and was not revived until the schedules were reached at 4.55 a.m., when Mr. Wilkinson moved a series of amendments, designed to reduce the basis of the wheat duty from 5/ to 4/6 at the country of origin, and the flour duty from £I*3 10/ to £11 10/, and also the rate of. duty when applied, from 8d a bushel to 3d in the case of wheat, and from £1 12/ to £15/ in the case of flour. All were not pressed to divisions, ■but in two divisions which were taken the amendments were defeated by 36 votes to 20, and by 3S votes to 1!).