WHEAT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 45, 21 August 1931, Page 5

WHEAT DUTIES

THE SLIDING SCALE

MANUFACTURERS' VIEWS

Although some delegates to the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation conference favourably discussed supporting the sliding scale of wheat duties last evening, no vote was taken be"cause the matter did not come before the conference as a remit. The president (Mr. G. Finn) expressed the opinion, that had it been on the order paper as a remit it would have been carried by an'overwhelming majority.

The matter was introduced by Mr. I,' Voolf. (president'of the Canterbury Association), who stressed the importance of the wheatgrowing industry to Now Zealand. The wiping out of the industry, he contended,' would mean .ruination for Canterbury • and North It had to be noted that as a result of Bussian dumping, the world price was lower than'it had been for ■150 years. Was the importer better for the country than the manufacturer? 'If the industry corild not be assisted and. ■• foreign wheat came in, then Russian butter should'be allowed in: also. There were over 6000 farmers engaged in growing wheat. When the industry was stabilised the increase of area sown •was '40,000 acres. ; No industry had responded so,, quickly to protection; Fortytwo, per cent, of'its, value represented direct and indirect,labour. To-day the farmer received orily 4d on the 41b loaf. He moved: ;•/

That the conference support the sliding scale; Of -wheat duties, and considers that the wheat industry should receive such, protection as is •necessary to maintain the welfare of an essential industry vital to the welfare of the Dominion; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded

to the Prime Minister,

< The motion was seconded by Mr. F. li. Hutchinson {Canterbury), who said that tho .conference should not consider tho-North Island against .the South Island. . Should the Wheat industry be maintained, .or would it pay the Dominion better to throw open the ports and let the; cheap stuff coitne in? It had been pointed out by an economist at^-the Wheat Inquiry that the .gain to '■ the.. Dominion .from the industry was about a quarter .of a million pounds, and that, the loss,:'by.allowingthe cheap stuff to-;icome in, would be about half a million pounds.' There was now the unemployment. problem, and' the position was much • more acute. He considered that the industry should :be maintained as a matter of principle. Owing to the importation of barley, pollard, and-bran farmers in the Dominion who grew barley did not know what to do with their land.

Mr. G. Finn .(Auckland), the president, said he 'thought that nothing should be: done that would- endanger the: wheat-industry of Canterbury. He .wasnot^opposedvto whsat- duties. The price, pajd-.to fanners in. Canterbury in the.past year or two had been very much on the high side, but.it had now been . reduced to what he thought. was a fair thing. Wheat growing was practically essential to Canterbury, and: no crop could take the place of wheat. Mr. S. Takle (Auckland) said that the discussion had been "sprung' on" the conference, and ho ;could not vote. •The; secretary read the rules of the1 association, which stated that no question should be voted upon unless it had been sent as a remit and had been sent to affiliated associations. Other matters might be discussed, but no resolutions should be put to the vote except by the unanimous consent of all the associations, whether represented at the conference "or-not.' '"' . .-*: ..-:..,. ■■

Mr,SV-€ainpbeU suggested that the motion be put to the vote and that Auckland- refrain from voting. Mr.; Finn expressed the view that had the.motion been a remit, it would have been carried by an overwhelming majority. He; understood the position Auckland members were in. Bos -own views^were very well-known. He would havetornle that no vote . could be taken.