WHEAT AND FLOUR DUTIES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 33, 2 November 1907, Page 4

WHEAT AND FLOUR DUTIES.

The Government has introduced the eagerly-awaited Bill which is designed to afford ] some measure of relief from prices which have for some time been current in the breadstuft's, markets. When he first forecasted legislation dealing with the matter, the Premier appeared to have some ideas of a sliding scale of duties upon wheat,'-'flour, and potatoes, under which the ordinary, duties would begin to shrink when prices touched certain fixed points, and ultimately disappear. The Bill proposes; to achieve the'desired end by a wholly different process. Instead of a sliding scale of 'duties—which-would be open to objection through its empirical character—it is proposed that the duties-shall'be abolished , whenever it is established, by the Arbitration Court sitting as a commission- under direction" from the Governor, that prices are " unreasonably high.".. In the case of flour, unreasonableness in price l is to be inferred when the .ratio of .the price of .flour,to.the price of wheat is higher in New Zealand than the. corresponding ratio in Australia, when allowance is made,for the difference of the cost of production in the two countries. That is a proposal with enough of logic and equity in it to satisfy the flour-miller, but the millers are certain to protest vehemently against the alternative line which the Bill opens for the proof of unreasonableness in the price of. floiii. -. This alternative enables the Court to recommend, the removal of the flour duty if the price 'of wheat in New Zealand has; "by reason of any -combination amongst the holders of stocks, or by ■reafjpn of any complete or partial monopoly; established by any such holder, been raised above the price which'would be determined by unrestricted competition." 1 It certainly seems hard on the miller thus t0... use ,him as- a weapon against the wheats-monopolist, for, although the removal of, the flour duty in such a case implies exactly the conditions under which the wheat duty will vanish, the miller cannot, if wheat, is very high in Australia, send abroad 'for'his stuff. If, however,.as hasbeen often suggested, the miller is not. inno : cent of connection with the holding of wheat stocks, this.provision.will, do no harm that is not deserved. As to wheat itself, and potatoes, unreasonableness is likewise, to be- inferred from what amounts to proof of monopoly; with the additional proviso that, apart from any other:',consideration, the,.price of potatoes shall be deemed unreasonably high .when -it exceeds £7 a ton. ' The Bill, so far as it is a. measure directed against monopolistic methods, is of unquestionable propriety. On the other, hand, it must be admitted that, there will be some : reason in the contention, if it . is. made, that the Legislature should hesitate before introducing this principle that the price' of commodities, and the profits of industries—even if they are free from monopoly—should be fixed by law. The; Bill'does':the first of these things in-setting an express limitto the pride of potatoes, and the other in the. clause which practically' says that a New Zealand miller shall not make a larger profit than an ■ Australian miller. One really good end the Bill will achieve if it becomes law. it will settle the hotly-contested controversy as to whether or not there exist wheat and flour rings in the Dominion. The passage of the Bill will in. itself clear the air, and steady the markets, and thus probably make it unnecessary to put its provisions into operation. There seems to us to lie little cause for alarm lest the Bill inflict injury and injustice upon the wheat-grower and the miller, and; it is certainly time that the whole situation of the wheat markets was. subjected to investigation.- ■ We cannot have the workers' bread left subject-to the operations of the speculator in gTain. . , . ' .