EMBARGO ON WHEAT AND FLOUR

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 173, 10 April 1923, Page 9

EMBARGO ON WHEAT AND FLOUR

LABOUR REPLY TO MINISTER’S STATEMENT. ' i - -■— BY TELEGRAPH—PBEJS ASSOCIATION. Christchurch, April 9. Messrs. D. G. Sullivan, E. J. Howard, H. T. Armstrong, and J. McCombs, M.P.’s, have received, the following telegram from tho Primo Minister :— “1 handed your telegram regarding tho embargo on wheat and flour to Mr. Nosworthy, who has prepared a reply, which is published to-day.” The Labour members have replied as follows: — “Mr. Nosworthy’s latest defence of tho flour embargo to which you have referred us is less convincing than his former efforts. Mr. Nosworthy knows that there is an efficient anti-dumping law on our statute book, which empowers tho Customs authorities . to charge the importer with the difference between the export or dumping price and tho fair market price i” the country of origin, and on top of" that there is a duty of £2 10s. per ton on flour, bran and pollard, besides primage duty. The millers askecLthat protection should be fixed by statute, and Parliament gave this industry all the protection asked for. Under the circumstances tho Government is no more justified in prohibiting the importation of flour than it would be in prohibiting the importation of agiicultural machinery or prohibiting tho importation of boots. “Mi Nosworthy knows quite well that the market quotation for wheat in Australia when tho millers had to buy their supplies was ss. 3d. to ss. sdi per bushel. Mr. Nosworthy has not satisfactorily exulained why New Zealand millers should charge Lio 10s., less 5 per cent, discount ioi flour manufactured from New Zealand wheat, which costs tho same as Australian. If, as he says, Australian millers are selling flour at £9 10s. net. f.0.b., why is it necessary for New Zealand millers to .charge £l4 14s. W net? The extra cost of sacks, 195., will not account for the differenc , because that still leave £3 os. ocl. extra profit for New Zealand millers. The extra price which Australian mi lers receive for their bran and l»l--lard, 305., is no excuse hatc^ el ’ 1 cause why should the New Zealand bread consumer have to pay ani extr price for his bread in order that p D s may have cheap foodr ■‘We have all along contended that than amply protected by the £2 10 . dutv ‘phis primage and plus , anti dumpin- law The farmers gain nothing from the embargo. ■ Under cover of the embargo the millers are enabled to exploit the farmers because the ex profits which the m Jrs are enabled to extort mean Hf 1 -. on , loaf consumed in New Zealand. Th embargo is no protection for rtteia mor, because if it were lifted, Aus tralian wheat could not be ?’ n P under 7s. a bushel duty The po 10s duty on flour is equivalent to protection, and if. New Zealand milFers were content with a reasonable profit, Australian flour could no more compete successfully with New Zea•land P flour than can Australian wheat. The, producers of butter and cheese and meat and wool have to be content ™ h the export parity or then reduce. and it is unfair that tney should be called upon to pay a price fir their bread considerably in excess of its fair market value. Public ser vante and the workers have had their incomes reduced by the Government should not be called upon to pay artificially high prices for their daily bread.” __