THE PRICE OF BREAD.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 13, 15 July 1905, Page 2

THE PRICE OF BREAD.

THE HOUSE AND THE DUTY ON j FLOUR. INTERESTING DEBATE. In the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon Mr. Hogg introduced his Flour Duty Abolition Bill. Mr. Hogg said ho had hoped that it would not have been necessary for a private member to have introduced, a Bill of this character, but they had endeavoured on various occasions in the past to induce the Government to tike steps to abolish the duty, but the Government had done nothing, and he had, therefore, been compelled to introduce this Bill. He had hoped he might rely on the assistsnee of members on both sides of tllo House, but he certainly could not rely on any assistance from the Government benches, and no doubt an effort would be made to block the Bill. According to the latest reports the price of wheat in Australia was: Sydney, milling wheat 3s 4d a bushel, flour £7 15s to £8 a ton; Melbourne, wheat £7 5s to £7 15s a. ton, and flour the same price aa at^Sydney. In Wellington wheat was quoted at 3s a bushel and flour at £9 10s per ton. The farmers of New Zealand were not afraid of competition, and tho Government, if it had any regard for the farmer, would assist it in getting rid of this burden that now rests so heavily upon them. New Zealand could hold its own against any other country. This tax amounted to about a penney on each 41b loaf, and he asked the House to i ssist him. in removing that burden. The Colonial Secretary said tho object ivf cheapening bread would receive general support, providing it was not brought below cost of production. If they took the duty off flour they should take it off wheat, which would be One of the heaviest blows our wheat grower could receive. It would mean the introduction of large quantities from South Australia and Victoria, and ruin th» local competitor, and he had no doubt that the producers of New Zealand would be dependent entirely on the lower values ruling in Australia. Ho should be only too glad to see flour sold at its fair market value, but he was persuaded that the proposed remedy would do a. great deal more harm than good. The Premier raised the'point that a private member could not introduce a Bill dealing with the dutieg which are leviable under the Customs Duties Act. Mr. Speaker ruled that the Bill could be introduced by a private niember. Mr. Bedford said this matter was of tremendous importance to the consumers. It was the Flourmillors' Trust which had caused this agitation, as it was believed that if the duty was taken off the Trust would not be able to increase the price abnormally to the consumers. He considered that/kven if the remission of the duty would involve the closing up of a large number of mills, they should take that step and not continue to inflict a burden on the people. Mr. Lewis characterised the Bill as an "electioneering dodge," and declared that there was not the slightest chance of putting it through. \t this stage the Premier moved the adjournment of the debate, as ho wanted to lay the Land Commission seport on the table. Mr. Taylor urged that the question raised by Mr. Hogg was moie importint than the mere formal act of laying on ths table tho report of a Royal Commission that every member knew was designed to enable v certain members to dodge their responsibility of voting on the question of land tenure last session. Such an important discussion should not be, interrupted by "the Premier in this way. He hoped Mv,. Hogg would. realise that the Premier had no sympathy with the question -that he had -raised, and that as soon as the operations of this Trust came up for discussion along came a motion for adjournment, and the debate was stopped. The motion for tho adjournment of the debate was lost on the voices. i Mr. Duthie said the price of flour was regulated by the Home market, and Ihe bogey the Premier set up was absurd. He had much sympathy with Mr. Hogg's proposal, and to throw open the market which was now controlled by the Flourmillers' Trust. If such proposal were always opposed by Ministers what chance had the people got of being freed from operations of these combinations ? He could not understand the attitude, of Ministers on the subject. Mr. Fowlds declared that if the people really knew tho truth about this burden no Ministry could possibly withstand the demand for its abolition. The real burden came from the operations of the FlourMillera' Association, which imposed »n addition of £1 10s to £1 15s a ton on the price of flour. Mr. Taylor urged that the farmers should give more consideration to tho needs of town dwellers us far as taxation Was concerned. Almost everything that tho farmer required for tho production of wealth came in free, but the town dwellers and artisans found that netrly every articlo of food and clothing, their chief necessities, were taxed. He believed that the Trust was inevitable, but they ought to see that very article that was capable of being dealt with by means of a Trust should cither be dealt with by the State directly or the Trust should be under State "supervision and control. Mr. Taylor referred at length to tho enquiry held by a Select Committee the session before last into the operations of the Flourmillers' Association, and' contended' that the 1 failure of the Houfe- to deal with the first real commercial Trust formed in Now Zealand had meant a loss to the consumers of the colony of £100,000 a year, and a sum equal to the coat of the proposed increase in old-age pensions. To meet this Trust the State must mill flour. The Premier: Or fix a- price at which flour should be- sold. Mr. T. Mackenzie said that even now the farmers have to pay a heavy duty on some maohinery and on some of the things they require for domestic purposes. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that concessions had been made to tho farmers, some oi them on his motion, but his view was lhat the tools and implements required in any industry bhould be free of duty. As to the question' of whether the townspeople or country people paid most duly, ho said that the land tax was a heavier burden than the income tax. The townspeople did not pay any duty that wag nol also paid by tho country people. He was quite willing to see the duty on wheat and flour struck off if tho city people would agree to do away with tho duty on boots and shoes.' Several other members also spoke, and Ihe debate had not terminated when the House adjourned for dinner.