FLOUR DUTY BTLL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 104, 29 October 1909, Page 3

FLOUR DUTY BTLL.

MR. HOGG'S ABOUTiON PROPOSALS KILLED. A QUICK DISPATCH. An old legislative friend in the shape of Mr. Hogg's Flour Duty Abolition Bill was before the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. Hogg, in moving the second reading of the Bill, r,aid it had been before Parliament and the country for a number of years, as he had consistently brought it forward. It was generally wel l debated, a particular instance being two years ago, when the Customs tariff was being revised. There was then a great fight over two items — motor-cars and flour. The motor-cars prevailed, and flour went down. The h»st timo he brought the Bill before the House a year^ ago it was very nearly carried. It would have been carried had not some votes gone wrong. One vote that he had expected, and that would have turned the scale, went id tho wroncc direction. He believed that there really was a majority in the House in favour of his Bill. A tax on flour, which wr.s a tax on bread, was unique. It was an extraordinary thing in a civilised ccuntry. Ho knew no other British country that had such a tax. "AN UNCHRISTIAN TAX." John Bull wanted revenue very badly, and had round him a very large destitute population, but took very good care that the poor people did not have their food taxed in this manner. He appealed to the House to remove what he called a mose unchristian tax. It concerned tho whole community, and above all others the man with a family. The Government thought they had done great things in removing the duties trom tea and from sugar. He knew of families ir Wellington, hard-working men, who, in. order to keep themselves afive, lived four families in a cottage, dividing tho rent among them. It was such as those who criecT to the Government to remove the duties on tho necessaries of life. He wanted to know whether the millers still required propping up Since their association was tormed they had taken, he ventured to say, a million of money from tho breadwinners of Now Zealand. Why was the duty of 20s per toh or 2s a bag on flour retained? We had excellent opportunities in New Zealand to produce foodstuffs. The duty protected no industry. Tt did not protect the people. Through it we were exploiting the people and particularly the labouring classes. He asked members not to consider the rings and combines that forced prices up, but to consider tho people. It would be argued that a certain number of men would be thrown out of employment if fche flour mills were closed up. Tho general run of the farmers would profit if this duty were abolished, tor they were 'arge tax-payers, and only a small percentage of iarmers- grew wheat. There were 77 flouv mills in tho Dominion, and he believed that if there were only onetenth tho number flour 'would bo produced cheaper. When Mr. Hogg resumed his speech no one rose to continue the debate. The question was put without further discussion, a division being called for, tho motion for the second reading being negatived by 38 voles to 21. DIVISION LIST. The following was tho division list : — Ayes (21) : — Messrs.- Arnold, Buick, Clark, Colvin, Davey., Dillon, Dive, Glover, Hall, lime, Ilogan, Hogg, Laurenson, M'Laren, Malcolm, Okey, Poole, Sidey, T. E. Taylor, Wilford, Wright. Noes (38) : — Messrs. Anderson, Bollard, Buddo, Buxton, Carroll, x. Duncan, J. Duncan, Field, Forbes, Fowlds, Fraser, Graham, Greenslade, Guthrie, Hardy, Herdman, Herries, Lang, Luke, Macdonald, R. M'Kenzie, T. Mackenzie, Mander, Massey, Newman, Nosworthy, Parata, Pearce, Phillips, Rhodes, Scott, Smith, Stallworthy, Steward, Te Rangihiroa, J. C. Thomson, Ward, Witty.