WHEAT Continued Cross-examination Of Mr Dunshea

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29872, 12 July 1962, Page 7

WHEAT Continued Cross-examination Of Mr Dunshea

“You are here to defend the system of State control of the wheat industry,” Mr P. T. Mahon suggested to Mr L. C. Dunshea, general manager of the Wheat Committee, at a hearing before the Committee of Inquiry into the Wheat, Flour and Bread Industries yesterday.

Mr Dunshea replied that he was at the inquiry not to defend the system but rather to explain it

Mr Mahon (Bakers’ and Pastrycooks’ Federation) was cross-examining Mr Dunshea on submissions presented to the inquiry by the Wheat Committee. When the hearing was adjourned yesterday afternoon Mr Dunshea had been under cross-examination for eight

hours and a ha_'f. Mr Mahon asked Mr DunShea to explain “the substantial shield for mills and bakeries had proved satisfactory in New Zeeland." Mr Dunshea replied that because flourmills were a protected industry there was no reason for mills to try to take over bakeries in an attempt to gain an additional share of the market. Mr Mahon: Do you regard it as a jusification of your system? What dangers do you see in take-overs? Mr Dunshea: There : s the loss of choice of bread, lack of deliveries. Mr Mahon: Has not State control similar disadvantages? Mr Dunshea said that in Britain some persons were saying that State control was the best system. Mr Mahon: Then this is really a question of political view-point whether the State or private business should run the bread industry. Mr Dunshea agreed that in New Zealand there was substantial State control of all three industries connected with the wheat industry. “Not Related" Asked whether there was any reel difference between consumers not having a choice of bread or bakers not having a choice of flour, Mr Dunshea said they were not related subjects. When Mr Mahon asked him whether he found any conflict of interest in his jobs as general manager of the Wheat Committee and honorary secretary of United Whaatgrowers, Mr Dunshea replied that there was no conflict. He still carried out fcis responsibility as general manager to be impartial to all branches of the industry.

Mr A. C. Perry (Flourmillers' Society) continued the cross-examination when Mr Mahon finished after five hours of cross-examination of Mr Dunshea. Mr Perry suggested that perhaps the Wheat Committee had been too neutral in its views at the inquiry. It could have assisted the inquiry. he said, by putting forward positive views on the other submissions. The Wheat Committee, because of its lack of positive views, and its function of carrying out Government policy, was, he suggested, only a sham, or, if that was too strong a word, a shadow.

Mr Perry asked why the Wheat Committee had not taken a leading part in the inquiry by testing submissions by cross-examination. “Is it the hand of the wheatgrowers upon you?” Mr Dunshea: No. Mr Perry suggested that the Wheat Committee would give a better appearance of fairness if members were elected, not appointed, and that the conflict of interest already mentioned had been the cause of inertia shown by the Wheat Committee at the hearings of the Committee of Inquiry? “Not Had Time” Mr Dunshea replied that the Wheat Committee had not had time to consider and comment on the decisions already put before the Committee of Inquiry. However, the Wheat Committee would probably ask leave to make further submissions. Mr Perry asked Mr Dunshea why there was not an electoral system for representation on the Wheat Committee. “It works for the Meat Board and the Wool Board, why not for your committee?” Mr Dunshea replied that the Wheat Committee was a body carrying out Government policy—its regulations, framed by the Government, did not allow for elections. Mr Perry then questioned Mr Dunshea at length on the quota system placed on flourmills. The hearing will continue today.