WHEAT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 81, 2 October 1929, Page 12

WHEAT DUTIES

SLIDING SCALE

NORTHERN VIEWPOINT

THE GRAIN POSITION

Tha sittings of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives, which is considering the sliding scale of wheat duties, continued its sittings to-day.

Evidence was given by Captain H. M. Rushworth, Country Party member for Bay of Islands, who spoke on behalf of the Auckland Provincial Branch of the Farmers' Union, with a membership of 700. He was opposed to a protective duty on wheat, and suggested a subsidy. Tho effect of a protective duty, direct or indirect, was to cause the prices of flour and wheat offals to be higher than would otherwise be the case. Captain Eushworth quoted figures to show that there was only one man more employed in the wheat industry in 1926-27 than there was in 1918-19. Wages in 1926-27 amounted to £162,325, aa against £109,743 in 1918-19. Other figures quoted were as follow (the figures for 1918-19 being given in parentheses): Grain value, £2,001,297 (£1,941,321); wheat used, 5,074,795 bushels (5,671,299 bushels); output value, £2,699 333 [mtSiif' gross profit' £535 'm

Discussing the possibility of New Zealand being cut off in time of war Captain Eushwor.th said the only way New Zealand could be cut off was as a result of the domination of the Pacific by a hostile force. If such domination took place the South Island would be cut off from the North Island. In his opinion the more interdependent the nations became the less likelihood was there o^ war. A high military authority had stated that a nation was safe from invasion so long as it was able to destroy the enemy's lines of communication,, and so long as it was independent so far as its supplies were concerned. WHY MUST THEY LIVE? The Minister of Industries and Commeree_ (the Hon. 3. G. Cobbe) asked Captam Rushworth if he thought the wheat farmers could carry on without assistance.

Captain Eushworth: "That reminds me of an incident in a railway carriage. Two^men were arguing, and one said: 'I must live.' The other said, 'Why?' » (Laughter.) ' '

anc'e^Oh, yef" ** BOOd aSSiSt^ J^ OU«T WV7 ifc aircct l 0 °'° s«wersJV—"Yes. I don't think the millers trS a-^ Pro'cctio» «» «ga«st Australian miners, because the wages paid m Australia are at least as hi-^h as they are here." ■ ■ ° "You suggest the millers are gettins a big.profit? "-"I think they ale " g J-ne Chairman (Mr. C. A Will-™ ttlSV 11? °f tho wo have had has been to tho effect thif everybody in the industry is losing money." losing fnMl^ » K, uf wortll: "A butcher once told n»e that he was losing Jd on every pound of meat he sold, i' asked S how he made his profit, and ho told Z terT 8 uantitv ke sold." (LaughThe- Chairman .-"You suggest tho miller is making too much. Wi, at poetical steps would you suggest as i moans of lessoning his profit?" £ rom^versea Es U"" V°ltll: "G™^°» sents rather a difficulty. " hJw Zm dvj "or b6 F ai? ,tllu a«tual *»*■ sold.'" C bUsllcl of w'wat ''To the miller?"—"Ves " "TW W a« u i 4 ?*P° rtea wheat!"— That would be just the samo "

PROTECTION RUN RIOT s ss&Kssssi ttrs?f try »to the North I s i and of fowl wheat, bran, and pollard, and a reason Qb y protective tariff to -rowers S A"7 ««»" £*"„ i n sffl tL .^P^n of duties I,.™* association considered, tend towards making the growers moro self reliant. The present tariff was creat ing a favoured class of farmer. It was unduly raising the value of land uTed in the production of wheat: it tended to remove the necessity for the strict methor?// na- the "? C Of and was a serious hindrance to the do velopmont of other profitable young it dnstnes capable of producing, undor reasonable conditions, a valuable add"' tion to our export trade. Tho witness quoted figures showing the prici rf fowl wheat during the past eighteen years. Fowl wheat in 19U was priced at 3s 6d, sacks in, but to-day the price »r^o-nc^il £^ WLsft> sum protest should bo made agSnst the con ra a tesanwhA f i'"* P***^ tarTff rates, which bore so severely not only on the consumer, but on every indus y'Tl^ W^ 6at Or wheat °ffa" poultry-keepers at Dunedin, and the general opinion expressed there was that New Zealand should be solf-de* pendent so far as growing of wheat was concerned. At no time was a re solution carried aimed at putting tho New Zealand grower out of action, *lthough the.poultry farmers were naturally anxious to get their food supplies at as cheap a rate as possible. Mr Hawke disputed the assertion that the bouth Island poultry farmer had an advantage over the North Island fanner? lhe committee adjourned until Tues-

At this stage the Committee ad T jouw»6d until tomorrow moitting.