WEIGHT OF FANCY LOAVES

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 306, 25 September 1945, Page 8

WEIGHT OF FANCY LOAVES

Practice Criticized By

Members

MINISTER’S DEFENCE

Reasons why some bread was sold at blow the standard weight were sought by members during the discussion on the vote for the Department of Industries and Commerce. The Minister, Mr, Sullivan, when replying, was frequently interrupted by Mr. Langstone (L., Waimarino) leading an Opposition member to remark "There appears to be some dissseution in the camp.” Information on imports of wheat was also sought. Mr. POLSON (N.. Stratford), referring to the item of £681,65!) in the estimates as the subsidy on wheat to maintain the price of bread and an economic return to growers, asked why the whole story was not included. Why were two ounces taken off 21b. loaves? Were bakers not doing that to meet the increased costs brought about by the control policy exercised by the Government? The regulations were so devised that a baker could sell the short weight loaf over the counter unless be was spccificially requested beforehand for the full weight loaf. If the position were carefully analysed it would be found that the public lost very heavily. The Governmeut was “putting something over” by suggesting that it was assisting the people in regard to living costs. -Mr. LANGSTONE (L„ Waimarino) said it was to be presumed that the 4d. per bushel increase in the subsidy on wheat was to keep down the cost of bread. He asked if the Minister could give figures showing how much cheaper it was to the people and to the Government to use the subsidy system rather than allow a rise in the price of bread. He agreed with the member for Stratford about the size of bread. There were a lot of fancy loaves being sold under the proper weight. He could not understand the reason, particularly as it would probably not cost any more to the baker to produce the full weight loaf. It should be mandatory on bakers to make Vienna, barracoota and other loaves full weight. Mr. GERARD (N., Mid-Canterbury) said they had received an assurance that wheat from Canada was coming into this country free. If that were the ease then the subsidy was over-stated. He represented the largest number of wheat growers in the Dominion, but could not get the information to pass on to his constituents. Nothing Underhand. Mr. .SULLIVAN, Minister of Supply, said it was wicked of the member for Stratford to assert that the Government was "putting something over” regarding the weight of bread. It was not till the present Government dealt with the position that there had been any effective regulation in the price of bread. Previously all that was required was that the consumer bad the right to ask the baker whether it was a 21b. or a 41b. loaf, and if the question were asked and the baker gave a misleading answer he was liable to prosecution, Mr. LANGSTONE: It is not done with tea Or sugar or potatoes. Why with bread only? Mr. SULLIVAN said the weight of bread had been fixed for standard loaves, but many people preferred fancy loaves which had a specific weight. That had to be exhibited by bakers. Mr. LANGSTONE: That is not done.

•Mr. SULLIVAN said that if a shopkeeper failed to exhibit that notice he was liable to prosecution. If a purchaser wanted a'standard 21b. or 41b. loaf all that he had to do was to order it. Mr. POLSON: He has to give 24 hours’ notice. Mr. SULLIVAN eaid that was correct, but the purchaser could give an order for a continuous delivery of standard loaves, but many preferred the fancy bread. There was a weight for standard loaves and a weight for fancy loaves. Mr. LANGSTONE: They are selling underweight. Everyone knows that. Sir. SULLIVAN said that the fancy bread was more expensive than the standard. The main point was everyone knew what he was getting. The overwhelming majority of the people got standard bread. Mr. LANGSTONE: It is a concession to the linkers. That is all it is. Mr. SULLIVAN said that the test was the public reaction and he had not received any complaints. He could not give any details as to the benefit to the consumers under the subsidy system. It was about lid. per loaf. The subsidy of £681,659 did not include any money- for Canadian imports, which had come in under the mutual aid agreement, which operated up to September 1. Mr. HOLLAND (Leader of the Opposition) : What will be the price of Canadian wheat after September 1? Mr. SULLIVAN said that was still under negotiation.

Mr.| GOOSMAN (N., Waikato) : What price was used for accounting purposes under mutual aid? Mr. SULLIVAN said the head of the department placed the figure at 12/6, but his impression was that it. was 10/6. Mrl HOLLAND said he did not object to subsidies and had never done so. The purpose of the subsidy was not to subsidise the wheat-grower, but to allow the people of New Zealand to get bread at a price lower than cost. It was a consumer subsidy. The cost over aud above the price of bread was paid out of taxation. When the servicemen returned from the war they would have to pay their share of taxation for subsidizing the price of the bread we ate while they were away overseas.

Mr. BODKIN (N.. Central Otago) asked it any consideration had been given to the question of granting au alternative price to wheat-growers at the farm gate. There was a difficult situation for those growers a considerable distance from the railhead. It would be ■well worth while for the Minister to give consideration to that.

Mr. THORN (L.. Thames) said the Leader of the Opposition had stated that he would abolish the subsidy on the price of wheat. The subsidy was a means by which tlie State was able to control price. If the subsidy were removed the price of bread would rise to such a degree that. it. would cost the consumer more than the subsidy.

Mr. SULLIVAN, replying to a question by the member for .Mid-Canterbury. sail 1 the loss on Australian flour imports was £lOB.OOO.