PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 33, 2 November 1929, Page 12

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

WHEAT AND-FLOUR DUTIES RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE SLIDING. SCALE ADHERED. TO ADVERSE MOTION LOST Retention of the sliding scale of duties affecting wheat and flour, and the admission duty free of bran and pollard are the •> principal recommendation!- of the special Select Committee which heard evidence on these questions. In its report to the House of Representatives yesterday the committee also suggested that a recess investigation be made by the Department of Industries and Commerce into the costs of milling and the baking and distribution of bread. An adverse motion to refer the report back to the committee was defeated by a substantial majority. • The committee held IS meetings and examined 60 witnesses, said Mr. C. A.' Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont), chairman. The items of the order of reference on which the committee was instructed to report to the House and the conclusions of the committee were as follow: — (1) The advantages from a national standpoint of the policy of the Dominion being self-supporting as far as its wheat requirements are concerned. The committee is unanimously of opinion that the Dominion should be self-supporting so far as its wheat requirements are concerned. (2) Whether the wheat-growers of the Dominion require protection or State assistance to enable them to market their product, in competition with the importations from other countries. ' The committee is unanimously of opinion that the wheat-growers of the Dominion should have some form of protection. (3) What form of protection or State assistance (if any) would effect that object without unduly adding to, the cost of wheat-flour bread, fowl-wheat' and wheat offal to the users? The committee recommends that the present sliding scale of duties affecting wheat and flour, as provided under the Customs Amendment Act, 1927, be continued, but that bran and pollard be admitted to the Dominion free of duty. (4) Whether protection is required for the flour-milling industry. The answer to this question is covered by the answers to the preceding questions, but the committee unanimously recommends that the Department of Industries and Commerce be asked to investigate the operations of the milling industry, with the object of ascertaining whether or not the cost of the production of flour can be reduced. J . .. (5) Whether the costs of baking and distribution of bread to consumers are reasonable or otherwise. The committee unanimously recommends that, in view of the disparity in the cost of baking and distribution ot bread in various centres, the Department of Industries and Commerce be instructed to investigate the cost of baking and distribution of bread. Position of Consumers. Expressing his own personal opinions on the subject, Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that the committee had been unable to agree upon the amount of protection that should be given. He regretted that the committee could not reduce the amount of duty on wheat and flour, with a view to bringing about a reduction in the price of bread to the people. Under the present sliding scale of duties it was not possible to import wheat under 7s. lOd. a bushel, and flour under £l7 14s. a ton. There was no possibility of relief from those prices nor was there any guarantee that the prices could not be raised. In New Zealand there was a powerful milling organisation and a Wheat Pool, and both were out to obtain the maximum price, which could only be the price at which the imported article could be brought into the country, plus freight and duty. Ultimately, perhaps, very shortly, the highest possible rates would be extracted from the consumer under the protection given. “I can only look at the thing from the common-sense point of view,” he added. “If strong organisations are controlling the commodities they will always get the highest possible price for the goods they handle. Thegeneral public is practically inarticulate. The only ones who can speak for them are members of Parliament, and it is to them that ‘hev must look for protection. Mr. J. S. Fletcher (United, Grey Lrnn) : Yes. and we are going to do it tO Mr. Wilkinson : “The member for Grey Lynn usually speaks freely, and no doubt he will present us with some fireworks Ijrr.er on.” (Laughter.) Mr. Wilkinson considered that under the present duties th? scale was weighted against the purchaser of bread and wheat. (United hears.”) Wheat raised under sheltered conditions, was being exported from New Zealand, and would be sold in competition in the open markets of the world. The net result would be of considerable interest to the grower of wheat in New Zealand, because it would give him some idea of the advantage he now obtained. Mt. Wilkinson said he had always urged that the wheat grower should receive reasonable consideration. Price of Bread. The question of the price of bread had been brought prominently before the committee, he said, and tstfatemeuts were made feat wlwioaa in some parte of Mow Zeis-

APPLICATION OF WHEAT DUTIES PROGRESS ON BILLS SUBSTANTIAL CLEARANCE MADE The House of Representatives had a full day yesterday. Several hours were devoted to discussion of the report of the special Select Committee which investigated the sliding scale of wheat and flour duties, the retention of which it recommended, with a suggestion that bran and pollard be admitted duty free. The report of the committee was tabled, an adverse amendment to refer it back to the committee for furthbr consideration being defeated on a division- by 50-votes to 20. Amendments to the Nurses and Midwives Registration Act and Products Act were read a first time, and the Native Trustee Amendment Bill was put through its final stages. Before the House rose at 6.35 p.m., progress from Committee was reported on the European, Native, and Lands “Washing Up’’ Bills. . The House to-day will meet at 10.30 a.m. Attention will be devoted to Government business until 1 p.m., when an adjournment will be made till Monday. . _ A feature of yesterday’s- proceedings was the _ delivery, late in the afternoon, of a comprehensive, statement indicating the extent to which the Government had redeemed the Prime Minister’s promise to provide work for all the employable unemployed in five weeks.

land the 41b. loaf cost 10d., the price in others was ns high as Is. 4d. Mr. ’W. D. Lysnar (Independent Reform, Gisborne): Where was the lOd. charged? ■ Mr. Wilkinson: “Dunedin.” He added that the chairman of the Wheat Pool had stated that even if wheat were given away free the cost of the 41b. loaf would be lid. in Auckland and Bd. in Christchurch. That indicated that the present method of grinding wheat into flour and baking the flour into bread was a very costly item. It had been stated before the committee that Tn some cases the cost of delivery worked out at 2d. per loaf. Cheap Bread. <Mr. F. Waite (Reform, Clutha) contended that bread was comparatively cheap in New Zealand when sold over the counter. Transport charges were primarily responsible for what was known as the dear loaf. If the whole of the duties were taken off wheat and flour the cost of living would not be reduced by sixpence per week for the average family in New Zealand. The sliding scale had been shown to protect not only the grower, but also the consumer. The Rev. C. ,L. Carr (Labour, Timaru) said that, in his opinion, the operation of the sliding scale had tended towards - the elimination of speculation in an essential foodstuff. The wheat industry employed more labour than any other branch.of farming in New Zealand. An irreparable loss would be caused if anything happened to the industry. The sliding scale had been carefully devised, and was the most effective, method yet found of safeguarding the interests of the wheat-growers than whom there were no primary producers in the country more important to the welfare of New Zealand. Report Opposed. Colonel T. W. McDonald (United, Wairarapa) expressed astonishment at the report of the committee.. He was absolutely opposed to the duties. He intended to maintain that attitude however short dr long he remained in Parliament. Mr. A. Al. Samuel (Reform, Thames): Right or wrong? Colonel McDonald: Yes, right or wrong . . .- Mr. Samuel: Why don’t you insist on your Government removing the duties? Colonel McDonald replied that he had not the power to do that, but at any rate he intended to do his best. “We will see how .ar you go,” remarked Mr. Samuel, amid laughter. Colonel McDonald : We all know what the hon. member is bound to do. He is bound to support.the policy of the, past Government, which imposed the duties. I don’t blame him.’ It is a question of party politics, and he must be expected to fulfil his role. I shall fulfil my personal role ... Further interjections by Mr. Samuel prompted Mr. Speaker to warn hiiii that he would he named if he persisted. Proceeding, Colonel McDonald said the effect of the duties was. to bolster up the wealthy trusts and combines. He would like to see the duties removed with the exception of a small impost of £1 per ton on flour and the equivalent on wheat. He moved that the report be referred back to the committee' for further cqnsidcration. The amendment was seconded by Mr. F. Lye (United, Waikato). Subsidy Advocated. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Independent Reform, Gisborne) said that as a result of protection bread in New Zealand was dearer than in any other part of the Empire. Why should the people of the Do-, minion be penalised for the benefit of the few people who grew wheat? 'He would support the amendment. Mr. J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton), said that with all his bluster, Colonel McDonald had revealed that he had not even begun to understand the proposition. While not agreed as to the nature of the protection, -the committee was unanimously of opinion that the industry should be preserved and protected. Mr. McCombs said he was convinced that the only satisfactory way of ensuring that the farmer received a payable price was for the state to acquire a sufficient number of mills to meet the Dominion’s requirements. The protection required by the wheat industry could best be obtained by means of a subsidy. Mr. J. A. Macpherson (United, Oamaru) said he was quite in accord with the report of the committee. The important point was whether we were getting good bread at a good price. Investigation had shown that New Zealand on the average was getting the most nutritious bread to be obtained. Regarding costs in comparison with other countries, Mr. Macpherson said it had been found that the price of the New Zealand loaf was the lowest in the world. Therefore, he agreed with the report of the committee that there should be an investigation into milling costs. Sliding Scale the Best. Mr. G. R. Sykes (Reform. Mpsterton) said that there were practically no wheatgrowers in iiis electorate, the farmers finding other avenues more profitable. From a political point of view it would be the pouular thing for him to sny that the duties should be removed, and the people given cheaper bread, but it was his considered opinion that the sliding scale was in the interests of producer and consumer. It was estimated that if the wheat industry went out of existence thirteen hundred men would be thrown out of work. In the national interests it was imperative that the small farmer —and the majority of wheat-growers w?re small farmers—should be protected. Inquiry Wanted. Opposition to the duties on wheat and flour was expressed by Mr. Lye, who said he was not convinced that the sliding scale assisted the grower so much as it did the millers and distributors, whose operations should be the subject of a searching inquiry. Mr. Lye said he was opposed to a policy of protection so far as foodstuffs were concerned. Mr. H. T. jlrmstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) : What about the primage duty? (Laughter.).

Mr. Lye said he did not intend ,to take up any further time in discussing the question. The vote on the amendment would clearly indicate to the country where members stood. Mr. Armstrong said he agreed with Mr. McCombs that the industry should be protected and that the form of protection should be a subsidy from the Consolidated Fund, so that everybody would pay according to their means. Under the proposals of the committee the man with a large family would be called upon to bear the greater burden. "If we are not strong enough to get the form of protection we believe to be the best, then we are not going to turn down every form of protection,” added Mr. xVrmstrong. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Reform, Riccarton) said that if the duties were removed a direct blow would be struck at one of -New Zealand's largest industries. It would be a sad day when the country ceased to grow its own wheat. Availability of Evidence. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said that if the amendment were carried there would be no guarantee that the Government would amend the Customs Act. “It would not be necessary,” interjected Mr. Wilkinson. “They could do it by Order-in-Couneil.” Mr. Holland said there was a general reluctance to do anything by Order-in-Couneil. An amendment of the Customs Act would be necessary in order to remove the duties. Mr. Wilkinson: No. Mr. Holland: If the hon, member says so, perhaps he knows what is in the mind of the Government. ‘Lind of the law,” added Mr. Lysnar. Mr. Holland pointed out that if the amendment were carried the evidence heard by the committee would be barred from members. It would be utterly unfair if the duties were lifted and nothing substituted. The farmers would be left at the mercy of dumping conditions, and that was far from a desirable thing. The wheat industry was entitled to the same measure of protection as any other industry natural to New Zealand. He hoped that the amendment would be defeated, and that by next session Parliament would be in a position to deal with the question comprehensively and scicntifically. Mr. W. J. Polson (Ind., Stratford) said that the committee had found that the wheat industry could not live without protection. There -were other industries in the same category, and much time had been spent by the committee which had come to a conclusion which was obvious before it started its work. The committee was prejudiced along a certain line of thought. He would have preferred the whole question to be referred to a disinterested body of. experts, selected on account of their special knowledge, and not to a committee of politicians. Mr. McCombs: We were not unanimous. „ “Of course, you were not, replied Mr. Polson, who went on to say that he had no doubt northern members were anxious to get reductions in various ways, while the southern members just as anxiously opposed them. The Leader of the Opposition: What about Professor Murphy having a go at it? (Loud laughter.) Mr. Polson said that if Mr. Coates studied Professor Murphy more closely than he did he might learn a great deal. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) : A source of inspiration. (Laughter.) Mr. Polson added that the question should receive a wider investigation than that of the committee. A sword, he said, was hanging over the heads of the wheatgrowers and it was time some definite plan was decided upon. Making Industry’ Attractive. Mr. TV. A. Bodkin (United, Central Otago) said that the Government yvould find that it w’ould have to make wheatgrowing as attractive as possible before farmers would take it up as an industry. If the duties were removed, the unemployment position would be aggravated. The only solution of the- problem was rationalisation of the milling industry. Air. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) said he was surprised at Air. Bodkin advocating State control of the milling industry, because such a policy would be a reversal of the platform of the United Party. The sliding scale of duties had stood the test of time, and the conclusion the committee had come to was that the scheme was the soundest of all. Cognisance should be taken of the conclusion, in view of the shots fired at the Reform Party. What the farmer was getting was only a reasonable protection and in turn he was giving good value. Air. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Ayon) expressed satisfaction that the committee had recommended some form of protection for the wheat industry. He preferred the sliding scale rather than no protection at all. Air. S. G. Smith (United, New Plymouth) said lie would support the amendment, otherwise he would be stultifying the promise he made during the election. He supported a subsidy in favour of the present system. ' Duty Not Wanted. Air. W. J. Broadfoot (United, Waitomo) said they could not afford to put a duty on wheat in New Zealand, because it meant that the price of (lour went up. He agreed that there was need for a searching inquiry into milling, because there was no need for fifty mills here. Air. Kyle: What about the 1500 lawyers? (Laughter.) Air. Broadfoot: “If we had many more members like you we would require 3000.” (Laughter.) He said that the free importation of grain had not killed graingrowing in Denmark. The wheat duties were bolstering up 8000 wheat-growers to the detriment of 1) million people. Air. W. H. Field (Reform, Otaki), said the industry should be protected, either by subsidy or a sliding scale of duties. Air. H. R. Jenkins (United, Parnell) said that, as a result of the duties, New Zealand had lost not only the Australian trade, but a good deal of Eastern business carried on through Australian houses. The duties should not be removed suddenly, as a hardship would be created. Amendment Defeated. On a division, the amendment was rejected by 50 votes to 20, and the report was tabled. • The division list is as under: — For the Amendment Against the Amcnd(20) raent (50). Barnard • Ansell Black Armstrong Broadfoot Atmore Fletcher • Bitchener Harris Bodkin Hogan Carr Jenkins Chapman * Jordan Clinkard Langstone ' Coates I,ye Cobbe AlcDougall Le la Pefrelle AlcKeen Dickie AtcDonald Field Martin Forbes Alason Fraser Afunns Hall Rushworth Hamilton Semple Hawke Smith Healy Wr ght Holland, H. W S Holland, H. E. Howard Jones Kyle Linklater AlcCombs Alacmillan Alacpherson Alakitanara Alassey Aluriro Alurdoch Nash Ngata * O’Brien . Parry Polson Ransom Samuel Savage Stall wort hy Stewart Sullivan Taverner Veitch Wa i te Wilford Wilkinson Williams Yowtf

TRAINING OF NURSES BILL BEFORE HOUSE DEPUTATION PROTESTS An amendment to the Nurseri and Alidwives’ Registration Act was introduced into the’ House of Representatives yesterday providing for the training of nurses as midwives in private hospitals. The Bill was read a first time. A deputation from the New Zealand Trained Nurses’ Association, acting under authority from the conferenece recently held in Auckland, waited upon the Alinister of Health (Hon. A. J. Stallworthv) yesterday. The deputation, which was introduced by Air. J A. Young, ALP., expressed strong opposition to the Bill being brought down at this stage of the session, and asked for .its postponement until the New Zealand Trained Nurses’ Association had an opportunity to fully consider the measure. The fear was expressed that should the measure become law a great injustice would be done to New Zealand trained registered nurses, and that the reciprocal arrangement now obtaining between New Zealand and Great Britain would be seriously prejudiced. It was urged that the high standard of training of nurses in New Zealand would be likely to suffer should the Bill now before the House be rushed through without full consideration. The speakers at the deputation were Alessrs. Kohn, Cookson, matron of the Wellington Hospital, and Aliss Inglis, the Dominion secretary of the Trained Nurses’ Association. , The Alinister, in replying, said he re■’retted that the Bill could not be introduced earlier. It was proposed to vest the power in the nurses’ and midwives' registration board to say which private hospitals should be recognised. It was the intention of the Government to fix the standard at forty beds. He promised to consult his colleagues in Cabinet to see whether the Bill could be postponed as desired. TO SAVE TIME ON LOCAL BILLS A RECESS OPPORTUNITY Proceedings in connection with local bills could be much facilitated and much time could be saved if local bodies promoting Bills would avail themselves of the opportunity which they have of submitting their Bills to the Department of Internal Affairs and to the law draftsman during the Parliamentary recess, stated the Local Bills Committee in a special report to the House of Representatives yesterday. “In many instances Bills come before the committee requiring drastic revision from the point of view of draftsmanship, added the report. “The committee considers it undesirable that this work should be thrown on the Law Drafting Office during the session, when the pressure of work on that office is heavy, while provision for its being done during the recess is specially made by section four of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act, 1920. It is pointed out also that the Department of Internal Affairs by circular dated March, 1927,. invited all local bodies to submit their Bills to that Department before the session, and the committee is of the opinion that it would be greatly in their own interests and would facilitate business generally if local bodies would take advantage of this offer.” LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ' DISPOSAL OF BILLS In the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Amendment Bill and the Pacific Cable Sale Authorisation Bill were introduced from the House of Representatives, put through all stages, and passThe Council agreed to the Amendment made by the House to the Law Practitioners Amendment (Solicitors Fidelity Guarantee Fund) Bill, and to the Land Laws Amendment Bill. The Arms Amendment Act and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland Empowering Bill were read a first time, and a second time pro forma, and then referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. A LATE PRIVATE BILL PROTEST IN COUNCIL. When the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland Empowering Bill came before the Legislative Council yesterday, the Leader (Hon. T. K. Sidey) said it was proposed to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the passing of the Bill, this having been done in the Lower House. This proposal brought forth a protest from the Hon. J. Barr, who said that it was contrary to proper procedure. It was a breach of the Standing Orders. It frequently happened that certain religious organisations came along with private Bills in the dying hours of the session. “I trust that the Leader of the Council will see that the Bill is referred to a Committee,” said the Hon. Sir Francis Bell. Air. Sidey: What Committee do you suggest? 'Sir Francis Bell: I was leaving that to the Leader of the Council. There is power to divert endowments, and we should hear evidence. It can’t be heard by the Council, but should be by a Committee. The Bill is essentially a private Bill, and surely can’t be allowed to pass without the slightest opportunity of hearing evidence in support of it. The Leader of the Council said he was quite willing to refer it to a Select Committee. The Bill was read a first time, a second time pro forma, and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. CIVIL SERVICE “CUTS” OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION. It was announced by the Acting-Leader of the House (Hon. G. W. Forbes) yesterday that an opportunity would probably be provided on Alonday for a discussion of the Government’s decision with regard to the Civil Service salary “cuts.”