SUBSIDY ON BREAD

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29871, 11 July 1962, Page 17

SUBSIDY ON BREAD

Questions Put

To Witness

The New Zealand Grain, Seed and Produce Merchants’ Federation favoured the abolition of the subsidy on bread, said the federation’s secretary 'Mr H B Martin) in cross-examination before the Committee of Inquiry into

the Wheat. Flour, and Bread Industries yesterday Mr Martin was answering questions put by Mr A C Perry i Flourmillers' Society) on the federation’s submiss;cns relating to subsidies Mr Perry: Your federation has recommended that the Government should review subsidies. Have you gone into the extra costs if the subsidy was removed? Do you know that if the subsidy is removed the orice of b ead would double?

Mr Martin: I have only gone into it loosely Does your federation, then, recommend that the price of bread should be double? —If the removal of subsidy means that, then the federation does suoport an increase in the price of bread Mr Perry also questioned Mr Martin on the federation’s recommendations for providing incentives for the industry Mr Martin had suggested that controls on the industry should be relaxed but a guaranteed price should be paid to wheatgrowers Mr L. J. Hensley 'Wheat Committee*: You mentioned Australia some time ago. Do you know that in Sydney a 2’b loaf costs Is 2d. and in New’ Zealand the price for a 21b loaf is 7*-4d” Asked by Mr R. Pryde 'Federated Farmers) whether he considered bread sales would drop if prices were increased. Mr Martin said that sales probably would decrease, but the actual consumption of bread w-ould not There simply would not be so much bread wasted Asked by Mr Pryde about th*- federation's views on the Wheat Committee. Mr Martin said it wa< envisaged that the Wheat Committee should cease to be a trading body and become an advisory body

Submissions Accepted Submissions by A M. Bisley Ltd., to the Committee' of Inquiry into the Wheat.' Flour, and B"ead Industries were accepted by the committee yesterday after the company’s Christchurch manager (Mr R. Harris) assured the committee that he had read the submissions and could answ’er questions unde- cross-examination On Monday the committee rejected the submissions when Mr Harris said he had: lodged the submissions on| b«half of the comoan vs gen-' era! manager and did notj know whet was in them I Yesterday’s submissions related to imnroved bulk I handling of wheat and bar- ' ley. There was no crossexamination '