WHEAT DUTIES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19970, 3 July 1930, Page 15

WHEAT DUTIES.

REDUCTION DEMANDED. HR WILKINSON AND THE UNITED PARTY. (. [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON, July 2. In the opinion of the Government no alteration should be made in the duty on wheat and flour until after the end of next year. This statement was made by the Prime Minister in the House of Eepresentatives to-day in replying to a question by Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmoiit), who asked whether the earliest opportunity would be taken to reduce the present taxation on those pro-

ducts. "The Government is aware of the present prices of wheat and flour in Auckland and in Australia," Mr Forbes said, «bnt as the hon. member knows the Wheat Industry Committee which sat last session recommended, inter alia, that the present sliding scale of duties affecting wheat and flour as provided under the Customs Amendment Act, 1917, be continued. This recommendation was approved by Parliament on November Ist, 1929. It is understood that the main crop for the 1931 harvest will now have been sown. In these circumstances it is not considered that any alteration should be made in the duty on these products until after the end of aext year." The prevailing prices of wheat and flour, were a serious tax on the community generally and on the poorer sections in particular, said Mr Wilkinson. There was a strong demand throughout the country for a reduction of the duties on wheat and flour. The latter eould be bought in Auckland for £lB 20s: a ton, but it could be bought in Australia for under £ll a ton. Freights totalled 35s a ton, so that they did not account for the disparity. "I; "am sorry to see the United Party has : 'adopted the policy of the Reform Party in connexion with wheat duties," Mr Wilkinson said. "When the United Party appeared before the electors what did it promise themf" A Reform member: Everythingl The noon!

"They promised cheap food, anyhow," Mr Wilkinson said. "They promised Customs free imported foodstuffs. Here we have this tremendous tax." A Reform member: You helped to put them there? Wilkinson: That ia no reason why 3 should not complain if they do not earry out their promises. He said there would probably. be a chance to place the'question more fully before the House later in the session; It would then'probably be possible to. see just where members stood on the point, and who was in favour of cheap food. Nothing was being done to alleviate the position. It was stated that next year's crop was in the ground, aiid that the matter would probably be dealt with after the end of next year. By that time there would be another crop. There was merely an implication that something would be done. 'fThis is a burning question in New Zealand to-day, and one that should, be, dealt with by the Government," Mr Wilkinson said. "There are members of thftkUnited. Party, pledged .to the hilt, to alter the state of affairs. Thcre are also Ministers on the Government benches." A Reform member: They are coming off'but'they are still on. Mr Wilkinson: I would like to know what they are going to do. Mr G. C. Munns (U., Koskill): Make a reduction.

•Mr F. Lye (TJ., Waikato) also expressed disappointment with the Prime Minister's reply. .He reminded the House that when the Wheat Committee presented its report both he and the member for Wairarapa did their best' to have it sent forward for consideration. The fact that the year's crop had already been planted was a useful aigument. The poultry and pig industries were being stifled in the meantime. If wheat were admitted duty free there vould' be more grain for stock food, and the country would be able to htdriaase its frozen pork export tenfold. At present the country as a whole was being .called upon to subsidise a handful of wheat-growers in the South Inland who, he considered, were not•fßcient in their productive methods.