DEFENCE OF WHEAT DUTIES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21250, 23 August 1934, Page 10

DEFENCE OF WHEAT DUTIES

JIR KYLE REPLIES TO CRITICISM [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.l WELLINGTON, August 22. The retention of the sliding scale of wheat duties was again the subject of discussion in the House of Representatives to-day during the debate on the second reading of the Customs Acts Amendment Bill. The Government's policy of protection was attacked by Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egrnont) on the lines of the speech he made when the original Customs amendment resolutions were before the House, and as before the main defence of the duties came from Mr H. S. S. Kyle (C, Riccarton). Mr Kyle said that Australia spent something like £4,000,000 last year in subsidising her wheat growers, and that Britain was guaranteeing 5s 7d a bushel to her farmers. New Zealand, on the other hand, could not guarantee her growers more than 4s 66. a bushel. Growers received only 3s 4d a bushel in the first payment last year, finally receiving 3s lOd a bushel.

Mr R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South): What are you getting now? . Mr Kyle: We cannot get 4s 6d a bushel. I got 3s 6d.a bushel this year. Mr McKeen: That is only an advance payment. Mr Kyle: Yes. The member for Egmont said millers were giving 5s a bushel, but that is quite wrong. Mr Wilkinson: The millers pay 5s « bushel. Mr Kyle: They pay 4s 6d in the South Island, and that is all the farmer ca- get. The sliding scale of duties is so fixed that he cannot get more. Mr Kyle said reference had been made to the necessity for a reduction in the price of flour, but it must be remembered that a reduction of £2 15s a tea would only bring down the price of bread by id a loaf. If the farmer were to give his wheat free the consumer would not be saved more than 2d on a 2)b loaf.