The Press. Friday, February 4, 1927. Wheat and Flour.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18917, 4 February 1927, Page 10

The Press. Friday, February 4, 1927. Wheat and Flour.

One of the Auckland papers ha 3 been protecting against the decision of the Minister for Customs to use his power to impose dumping duties in respect ! of any " dumped " flour contracted for I after January '.27 th or landed after i February 2Sth. The principal argument used is one which the Minister i can scarcely read unembarrassed. "So " far as the official statement go," the Auckland critic gays, there is no evidence of any justification for a dumping duty. " Only a week before " his surrender to the pressure from " Canterbury," it adds, " Mr Stewart " had refused to act. Nothing has " occurred in the interval to warrant " his change of attitude." One cannot complain that this is an unfair " rubbing in" of the fact that the Minister's first statement, objecting to the claims of Canterbury, was a mistake. The Auckland attitude is easy to understand: wheat ia not grown in Auckland, and Auckland therefore does not care what happons to the wheat industry. At the same time some of the Auckland paper's criticisms ought to be heeded by Canterbury farmers. It says that although tbe assumption baa been made that the imposition of a damping duty on Hour will result in better prices for local wheat, there is no solid ground for expecting this to follow. In fact, "the cry of tbo fanner's cmbarrass- " ment is merely a cover for the grant- " ing of higher protection to the " millers without any advantage to the "growers." Tbe millers have, of course, given no kind of guarantee, but t.hcy have certainly allowed the fanner 1)0 bclicvo that if he supported the demand for ft dumping duty on flour lie would share the benefit of it. The larmers will accordingly watch very dosely the policy of the millers. In the meantime it has been reported, as we recorded yesterday, that the millers are " bearing " the market. Since the Government has acceded to the request of the growers for a dumping duty on flour, there is'an obligation upon the millers to explain why thi3 benefit cannot be shared with the growers. They ought also to explain—or the Government ought to—how much flour has been imported from Australia or ton traded for this season. Wo understand that the story is current, and is being circulated by interested parties, that the Government intends, when framing the dumping duties, to "do down " the farmers. It may be that this story is an invention, and that the Government does not intend to mislead anybody. But the Government will not escape blame—it is already being criticised from mouth to mouth—unless it makes a full and frank statement of ita intentions.