WHEAT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 95, 23 April 1931, Page 11

WHEAT DUTIES

OPINIONS VARY

DEBATE IN HOUSE

INQUIRY SOUGHT

Wlenever discussed on tho floor of the House of Representatives, ■ the question of tho wheat duties proves a popular subject with members of Parliament, and yesterday proved no exr coption. The opportunity provided by the Prime Minister (the Bight Hon. G. W. Forbes) was fully availed of, and when the debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 5.30 p'm. members were still showing an inclination to place on record their views as to ■whether a sliding scale of duties should be placed on the wheat grown in tho Dominion or not. An amendmont by the Leader of the Labour Party that an investigation should be made of the whole position by ,a Committee of tho House had not been voted on when the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. In order to initiate a discussion on tho wheat, flour, and bread question, the Prime Minister formally moved that the reports presented to the House on production and distribution be referred to the Government for consideration. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) said he did not think it was reasonable to suggest that the wheatduties should be wiped out and no protection given, but he , was of opinion that there should be a substantial reduction in order that bread might be cheaper. The relief which would be obtained by a reduction in wheat duties would apply beneficially to other sections of the farming community. The poultry farmer would benefit by decreased duties. He believed, along with many other farmers, that stock foods should come in free. However, the wheat duties did not constitute the ■whole of the1 problem. There was a dark tunnel into which the wheat went after it left the farmer and its cost was greatly increased before* it reached the consumer. "I would be glad of extension of time," said Mr. Poison when elaborating the cost of flour and broad production, but when the Speaker put the question to the House, on the motion of Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch), there was an emphatic "No" from the Reform benches. The Leader of the Opposition (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates): "Do it on the Finance Bill." ..-..■;• Mr. Poison maintained that the baker was not making an. abnormal profit. INCKEASDira THE UNEMPLOYED. ,Mr. J. A. Maepherson (United, Oamaru) referred to the importance of wheat growing, and said they could not go on fattening their stock unless they renewed tho quality of the land by growing wheat. Thero was over £30,000,000 invested in the industry, and if the industry came to a, standstill many men would be thrown out of employment. The baker was making a. big profit out of the sale of bread, but, the farmer who , grew the ■. wheat very often had to wait twelve months before he secured any return. '

Mr. T. D. Burnett (Beform, Temuka)/ said the time was not propitious to lamper with the wheat duties. t They had to consider the number employed in the industry and the prevailing depression, and they should pause before doing1 anything-to affect an industry which paid £900,000 a year in wages. The industry was only asking for its fair'share of protection with, other-in-dustries. Mr, J. S.: Fletcher (Independent, Grey Lynn):' "What protection does the dairy farmer get? ". i: Mr. Burnett:, "Forty per cent, on foreign butter coming, into the country." (Laughter.) He argued that the sliding scale of duties had not made the wheat-growing industry as attractive as many: peoplo believed. WANTED. The, Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H, -E. Holland) saia that what ■was wanted y was .a „ comprehensive investigation, always with a view to ensuring adequate supplies of wheat and .flour at a reasonable price and adequate protection of. the standard of life of the workers on the farms. The eternal question of free trade and protection always cropped: up in a discussion on duties, and it was interesting to note the varying viewpoints. . A .bootmaker' was a protectionist so far as' his. industry was concerned, but he advocated the abolition of wheat duties. Tho poultry farmer was against tho free importation of egg-pulp, but he was in favour of duty-free-wheat. He moved that the Government set up a Committee of the House to investigate and report on the problem of wheat production, flour milling and bread manufacture with a view.to ensuring cheaperbread to the, people and at the same time maintaining the,standard of living of the farm workers and an adequate return to the growers. It seemed that 1 lie methods -of flour production were out of dato, and furtheimore there wns the . problem of Distributors, Ltd., which had not been touched upon^ by the Industries and Commerce Department's report. There had . been ■■ instances of bakers who desired to bring down the price of broad being prevented from doing so by the combines. The removal of the' duties would mean a. reduction of about Is a week only in the average household expenditure, and it seemed that the problem was a much bigger one than the question of duties. , '... ; A MYSTERY. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent Egmont) said the question of wheat, flour, and bread appeared to be something of a mystery so far as prices •were concerned at least. The profit made on bread to-day was a little under Id per loaf, which was very small. So far as the amendment was concerned, there had already been a full inquiry into the whole quostioii, and a further inquiry would only mean another delay. The present was a time for action. This Government had representations: from the various interested parties, and ha trusted that tho Government would also listen to the representations of those who represented, the'purchasing public. The time had arrived for a review of the existing duties, arid growers would be well advised to ;iccept a reasonable compromise. Mr. Wilkinson quoted figures showing the prices of Australian and New Zealand flour, and said without tho duties Australian flour could be landed in New Zealand at £8 10s per ton instead of £17 15s, a very material difference. JEIe suggested that the growers in New Zealand should take 4s a bushel for wheat on the trucks.

Beforin members: "Thank you."

If the growers accepted 4s a bushel, said Mr. Wilkinson, flour could be sold at £11 12s a ton, and bread could be sold at 10d a loaf, instead of 1b Id.

Wheat growing was a declining industry, and the areas, sown had been, considerably roduced in. recent years. If they went on in tho samo way they would have to import wheat in any case. An immediate decision had -to be reached, as farmers wanted to get their <-,rops in. - The price"of bread in WclJington was Is,ld, and in Melbourne, it was as low as 4d for a four pound Joaf. In Sydney the price was from 6d 4<i Bd, and in London it was GJd. He

was satisfied that the grower was not getting the benefit of protection that ho thought he was; it was the miller who was getting tbo benefit. The miller should not get more than £3 a ton, and the duties should be adjusted to ensure that. The cost of living was largely bound up with the prico of bread, and the price of bread to-day was nothing short of disgraceful. Parliament alone" could : altor tho price of bread, and the best way to do that was to readjust the tariff." He hoped, tho Government would take into consideration the rights of the pooplo who bought the bread and not consider the grower and the miller only. I DUTIES SHOULD BE REMOVED. Colonel T. W. M'Donald (United, Waii-arapa) agreed with Mr. Wilkinson, and said tho time had long passed when tho duties should be removed. The price of bread was unconscionably high, and he could not understand why the price of bread should bo maintained so high when there were so many unemployed. The question was being put off- and put off instead of being tackled in a courageous and statesmanlike manner. There waSj a time when wheat-growing flourished and prospered without any duty, and there was no talk then of people being thrown out of work. They had not alone to see to the removal of the duties; in addition there was a |rust and combine eating the very vitals out of the industry. 'He condemned the operations of Distributors, Ltd. The Government should remove the defect in the law which enabled such a monopoly to continue to work against the interests of the people of New Zealand. "Ask the Government to see to it right away," urged Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central). f'l am pleading with them now to do it," the speaker replied. The Secretary of the Department of Industries and Commerce would rectify the posi-

tion in a very short time if he were given a free hand. There was no,fairness in giving special treatment to one section of the community and withholding it from other sections. The price of bread should be cheapened in proportion at least to the^ cut in wages. Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Md-Canter-bury) said that the bakers in some districts were getting more profit than the wheat growers and the millers together. Mr. Wilkinson wanted the price of bread to be reduced to lOd, and that was the price at twenty-two shops in Christchurch. Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour, Raglan): "It is 8d in Wanganui." Mr. Jones said that the profits made by Distributors, Ltd., were reasonable. Mr. J. M' Combs (Labour, Lytteltqn) said every member who had spoken had wanted protection for his own district. Mr. Wilkinson had suggested what amounted to a 25' per cent, reduction in the price of wheat to the grower. Mr. M' Combs referred to the disastrous' result which would follow

the abandonment of wheat-growing in New Zealand, and said it would mean, that the Dominion would be a loser to the extent of £2,000,000 per annum. AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE. Mr. F. Waite .(Eeform, Waitemata) said that the price of wheat was:not as great a factor in the price of bread as the costs after the'wheat left the grower. "With wheat at 2s 2d a-bushel in Australia, the price of bread in. the cities was as high as the prices in the New Zealand cities. He did not; think that the Department's figures were correct. It seemed that the Department took the highest prices given and not the average price, an>d as these, figures were used in the compilation of- the cost of living it was important that they should be -correct. The price of bread in Dunedin was given in the report as lid, but investigations he : had caused to bo carried out on Mondayshowed that the price, there was as low as 9£d.v .-'.-'. :■ ;:' "■■■■' ' ■ ' " - ' ■ '■ : The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. P. A; de la PerreUe): "The figures wero obtained m September laSt." ;: ' ■ A Beform member: "They are out of date." •' : ■■ ;; •" ' .Mr. Waite agreed'that the price ot bread in New Zealand was too high, but the abnormal profits were ■ made after tho wheat left the farm. ■ Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) said the question of the price of bread was of supreme importance to tho working people of'the Dominion. :The percentage of income spent on bread was quite high,' and a tax on wheat, bore mo/o heavily on the poorer class than those in receipt of wages over £4 ,a week. At the same time rhe questioned whether, it would 'be wise to have a free market. .•■',■ , INEFFICIENT MILLS. ; The Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. P.: A. dela Perrelle) said the investigation by his Department had been made in 1930, but it could be taken that the ■ figures , were correct; He candidly believed that there, were too many inefficient mills in New Zealand, and that had an effect on the price of ■ flour; ' He held the opinion that'the'inefficient•■ mills should, cease operating and the work should be undertaken .by tho: efficient mills. Mr. It- P. .Dickie (Eeforni, Patea) said the wheat 'growers' were the only farmers who" wore being protected, and they wore probably, tho only fanners who were prosperous; : • ... Mr. C. Cavr (Labour, Timaru) said that tho wheat,growers we-ro on a stablo basis, at tho present time, and wcro employing ■■'hundreds of ■workers, ■.and they should not be called Upon to bear any reduction in the: cost of bread. If the sliding scale were removed, they would be deprived of their livelihood. He supported■ the amendment. '.< ' Mr. B. "W. Hawko ; (United, Kaiapoi) said that the door" was barred .in Australia against any 'of the Dominion 's products; and it would bo. unwise to. rely on the Commonwealth for... our wheat. He hoped tho duties would be retained and thefarmer given every opportunity to , carry on.,'. . .'■ Mr. 11. S.-Kylo (Reform, Biccarton) declared that the wheat grower was not makiiigibig profits, but the flour manufacturers. / The cost of bread was largely due to tho manufacturing process. • - The debate was "talked out."'