LETTERS TO EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 116, 9 February 1929, Page 11

LETTERS TO EDITOR

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS ' Sir,—As two different Bible in Schools Bills are to be introduced into Parliament this session, and as there is also a movement afoot to obtain a Dominionwide referendum on the Bible-reading in schools question, the enclosed extract from an American journal of November last may. be of interest just now. —I am, eIC " A. NEW ZEALANDER.. Wellington, February 6, 1929. [The enclosure referred to reads: In Boston last February a committee appointed by the National Association of School Superintendents made its report on ‘Religion in American Education.’ In the report were the following sentences: ‘The greatest task facing the secondary schools in America is to help these adolescents find their God. We do not know how this is to be done, but we do know that this great problem is not to be solved by continuing to ignore it. This is the pronouncement of 7000 school superintendents in the United States.] ” COST OF BREAD

Sir, —I have read with interest your correspondents’ letters on the above subject, and have pleasure in contributing the following facts: — During January, the current domestic value of Australian flour, in Victoria was £ll 2s. 6d. per ton. Owing to the sliding scale of duty on imported flour, the rate' paid on parcels imported was £5 18s. per ton, plus the 1 per cent, primage, which made the total duty £6 Os. 3d. per ton. If you add to that duty the cost of landing: Freight £1 Ils., wharfage 45., cartage 3s. 6d., insurance and exchange 2s. 6d., total £2 Is., it will be seen that New Zealand enjoys protection to the extent of £8 Is. 3d. per ton. As the current domestic value has since been reduced to £lO 155., the duty automatically rises, and the rate now payable is £6 ss. ,per ton, plus 1 per cent, ■primage, so, regardless of lower values for flour, the New Zealand consumer continues to pay heavily for his bread. If the above-mentioned “luxury tax” did actually' prohibit the 'importation of Australian flour, and kept this market for the New Zealand wheatgrower and flourmiller at a reasonable price, there might be some justification for it, but when it is known that substantial quantities of Australian flour are imported for mixing purposes so as to produce a palatable loaf, the duty can only be looked upon as an unreasonable tax on the whole community. Australia sells wheat and flour in competition with world on an average wheat yield of 13.74 bushels per acre, during 1926-27. and 9.52 bushels per acre during 1927-28, whilst New Zealand requires a prohibitive duty on flour with wheat yields of 36.13 during 1926-27 and 35.56 during so that the position is difficult to understand. If the New Zealand wheatgrower has to be protected, surely there is a better way of doing so than by imposing sueh a heavy tax on flour. The time has come for the matter to receive attention. —I am, etc.. “MERCHANT.” Wellington, February 7, 1929.