WHEAT DUTIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 162, 11 July 1934, Page 8

WHEAT DUTIES.

SYSTEM RETAINED

AGAINST COMMISSION'S VIEW

VALUE OF THE INDUSTRY.

Three of the four members of the Tariff Commission recommended the abolition of the sliding scale of wheat and flour duties, and the substitution of flat rates. The fourth member recommended that the duties be gradually abolished. The Government decided to retain the sliding scale.

Mr. Goatcs' reference to this subject was as follows: —"Since 1927 New Zealand has had a sliding-scalc of duties on imported wheat and flour. On this subject there lias been, and there continues to be, a reasonable and healthy difference of opinion. 1 need not recall all of the controversy that has been sustained, nor the- periodic outbursts of criticism that have occurred from time to time; nor is it necessary to recall that even within tlie most highly organised and the most articulate of bodies unanimity of opinion has been singularly lacking. "For present purposes and so far as the report of th<> Tariff Commission is concerned, 1 merely mention that this is one item of importance on which the Commission itself failed to submit a unanimous recommendation. It may be of interest to indicate briefly the nature of the- recommendations of a majority of tho Commission, and after that I shall indicate also the Government's proposals. A majority (three of the four members) of the Commission recommend tho abolition of the sliding scale of wheat and Hour duties and the substitution of flat rates of 1/3 per bushel on wheat and £5 15/ per ton on flour. These compare with the present level of duties of approximately 2/0 per bushel on wheat and £7 per ton on flour based on Australian pricey of 2/11 per bushel and £0 7/ti per ton respectively. The other member of the Commission —and both llie majority and tlie minority reports will, of course, lie published— recommends that the duties be abolished as soon as is practicable by progressive reduction over a period of years.

"The Government, having full regard to tlie report, to the reasoning and to all attendant, circumstances, propose that the. present sliding scale should be retained, and in substantially its present form. We believe that, on the whole, the existing system has worked well —- not indeed that it has won universal praise, but as far as can reasonably be expected in this human world, it has worked and is working well. That is a view in which, without doubt, the great majority of the community concur. "'J'he contrary view has been expressed, as I have made clear, by the Commission, From their report J quote one sentence: —'We are unable fo see any reason why the wheat farmer should not, like most other primary producers, be subject to the vicissitude of (he world price-level.' "That expresses a sentiment with which we do not agree. Our view is that the removal of the protection that has been given to whea(growers would menace an industry which New Zealand cannot afford to have .menaced. It is unfortunately true that the. vast majority of our farmers have, in recent years of depression, been exposed to a severe economic blizzard. Does it follow from this that wheat-growers whom we are in a position to some extent to safeguard, should be similarly exposed? We think not. The recommendation, of the Government then is that the present system of wheat and flour duties should be retained."