DUTY ON FLOUR

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 287, 31 August 1931, Page 11

DUTY ON FLOUR

Fixed Scale Advocated

PROTEST BY BAKERS Parliamentary Action Sought Holding that when the present sliding duty on Hour was introduced, its sponsors never anticipated the wide discrepancy between the New Zealand and Australian prices at present ruling, Mr. H. P. Burton, president of the New Zealand Master Bakers’ Federation of Employers states that the bakers want a return to the old fixed duty, £3 per ton. “The whole bakery trade of New Zealand, due to immediate contact with the public, is seething with discontent,’’ he declared, “having been forced to reduce prices of bread without a corresponding reduction in flour prices. It is only fair to the millers to say that wheat has been bought at high prices for present consumption to February, and that there is no prospect whatever of variations in flour prices until 1932. /“Unless some action is taken immediately the price of flour in February, 1932, will mean the further retention of highpriced bread. In view of the fact that the consumption of flour in New Zealand is round about 1901 b. a head of population, the matter is highly important.’’ “To-day flour may be bought in Australia as follow:—Melbourne, £5/10/-, f.0.b., a ton; Sydney, £7/10/-, f.0.b., a ton.

“If freight and incidental charges, including cartage at this end, are added, flour can be landed and placed in the factory of Auckland or Wellington bakers at approximately from Sydney £9 a top, and Melbourne £7/10/- a ton, as against the Auckland price of £lB/7/6 a ton, less 2J per cent, for New Zealand flour.

“In view of these figures, it is obvious that the wheat grower of New Zealand is enjoying a protection out of all proportion to equity and public consideration. “We do not suggest that the wheat grower cannot sustain the prices now obtaining for milling wheat in New Zealand, in the light of the position, say, two years ago, but we do suggest that those conditions do not obtain to-day. No argument has so far been adduced that will show why the wheat grower should receive the present abnormal protection, while the dairy and wool interests have to meet world competitive prices.” Referring to co-operation of wheat growers and flourmilling interests to ensure a further stabilisation scheme, Mr. Burton stated that bakers were not concerned with the merits or otherwise of the scheme, excepting to say that it will not help to reduce bread prices. “What is really required is Parliamentary action,” said Mr. Burton. It is selfevident that the wheat-growing interests of Canterbury have, by combined influence, induced Parliament to bolster up, in View of present-day conditions, what is plainly a fictitious price of wheat and flour at the expense of the consuming public. “The bakers are bearing the full brant of the economic stress existing, and bread is being'forced down in price to prohibitive rates, without any appreciable reduction in flour prices, a state of affairs that must exist until February, 1932. “The suggested rate for February, 1932, at 4/6 a bushel for wheat, will still leave a protective duty of £6 a ton at Auckland on Sydney flour, provided present prices continue, and £7/10/- a ton on Vic-

torian prices, ai;d we protest against the retention of the present sliding scale of duty, and submit that the public is entitled to ask the Prime Minister' to abolish the sliding scale without delay, and substitute a protective duty on flour at £3 a ton, as formerly existed. “On this basis there is some prospect for a substantial reduction in the price of bread after February, 1932, but unless some united action to protect the public interest Is taken forthwith, New Zealand will still have to pay a high price for bread beyond that period.