PRICE OF FLOUR

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 54, 1 September 1914, Page 8

PRICE OF FLOUR

SHOULD THE DUTY BE " TAKEN OFF ? LOST OP FOODSTUFFS DEPUTATION TO THE PREMIER.

A large number of members of Parlia» ment waited on the Prime Miniate* (Right Hon. W. F. Massey) this after« noon with a request that during Uig present crisis the duty on wheat and flour should ho taken off. The deputation was introduced by Mr. Davey, who said the price of foodstuffs was a. serious menace to the poorer people a-nd the* Do* minion, and they had to »8k that the preseht duty of £1 a ton on flour should be removed. Since March last the price of flour had risen by from £2 &j to £2 15s pci ton, and it was now £15 per ton. That increase must naturally be passed on to tho consumers. No one wanted to injure the primary producer, but ho believed that if the request of the deputation was complied with they would injure no one but the middleman, who was endeavouring to exploit tho consumer. He Uiought it was the duty of the Government to find out who was putting up the price of flour and to stop it. What the deputation wanted was that tho duty should be taken ol! for from tlxtve to six months. Mr. Witty said there was no doubt that the millers must be holding a large amount of wheat, and they had no justification for exploiting the country. Mr. Veitch urged that a considerable benefit would ensue if tho freight charges from one coastal port to another were reduced. It might, he suggested, even be necessary for the Government to buy all the wheat and handle it in the interests of tho public. Mr. .Webb considered that the crisis is so great that it is the duty of this Government to do all in its pow< . % to prevent the operation of any ring or monopoly. In doing so the Government Iwould get tlie support- of every man in tho House. Sir Joseph Ward said the Opposition would do anytliing in its power to keep .down the cost of living. Several other members spoke to the same effect, urging that this was a matter that required immediate action instead of waiting for the report of the Food Commission. It was also contended that the work of the Food Commission should be "speeded up " a« much as possible. MR, MASSEY'S REPLY. Replying, the Prim« Minister said "he was pleased to notice that members generally recognised that the proposal was important. He pointed out that the export of wheat had been prohibited, for, as a matter of fact, there was sc: .t3ly enough wheat in New Zealand to last until next harvest. For some time he had done his utmost to encourage tho growth of wheat on a. larger scale, and his efforts had been successful. Wheatgrowing was not a profitable branch of agriculture, and was less profitable by ■far in> New Zealand than m Australia. If, he went on to say, they took the duty off Australian wheat it would be only^fair for Australia to take the duty off New Zealand oats. It had also been suggested that if the duty oil flour was taken off, the employees in our flour mills might be affected. He was 'strongly against the exploitation; of the public, and th« Government was doing its best to prevent it. That morning lie had received a cablegram from Sydney stating that the price of wlioat was ■ 4s 9d "on rail," which meant that wheai was as clear in New South Wales as in New Zealand. The point to be considered was what effect the taking off of ihe duty would have on the production of wheat in New Zealand. It was possible it might have the effect of reducing it below our own requirements. As to the Food Commission, ho had arranged for Mr. Justice Stringer to b<s relieved from his duty in the Supreme Court, and had urged that the Commission should start its sittings as soon as possible. The question of the price of flour would bo among the matters considered.