THE WHEAT DUTIES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19972, 5 July 1930, Page 19

THE WHEAT DUTIES.

TO THE XDITOB OV THE PKBBS. Sir,—Farmers of Canterbury will read with interest your leader «of■» to»dayj» issue, wherein you state some of the most important reasons for retaining the sliding scale of duties on wheat and flour. One is astonished at the ignorance that still exists regarding this most important industry among those whose position., should warrant an understanding of the effect the removals of these duties would have on the country. The lifting of the duties on bran and pollard has not reduced the price to the • stock feeders of the North Island, for tho Victorian (Australia) inillowners' price before me for bran and pollard U £8 and the New Zealand price £8 and £8 10s. .. The price of bread is as low m New Zealand to-day with the sliding scale of duties as it is in many parts of Australia. ' Therefore we have nothing to igain' by throwing overboard these duties, retain about three million pounds annually in the Dominion, chiefly expended, in the production of this staple, food. We do have to see, however, that the consumer shall receive value for the protection, afforded, which vis Suite another matter to ruining an lnTOtry which the country is so much in -need of to employ her workers and produce the necessary revenue to meet m- • tercet, rates, taxes, etc. ■ It may be a question as to whethei lie-rise of ten shillings per ton on flour last month was justified, and whether Under the offer of the Wheat Pool of -two million bujhels of wheat next season at sr6d per bußhcl on trucks, representing 3d per bushel less than the arranged Price to the grower, and resulting in £112,500 less revenue "n nine million bushels grown in .the Dominion, there could not be an adjustment of prices to the consumer, which would still leave •the wheat industry secure for tho good of the Dominion.—Yours, etc., A. M. CARPENTER. Fernside, July 4th, 1930.