WHEAT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 103, 28 October 1932, Page 12

WHEAT DUTIES

A MAXIMUM PRICE ?,

PROTECTION NECESSARY

Claiming to have been the originator of the sliding scale of duties on wheat, Mr. J. Connolly (Coalition Liberal, Mid-Canterbury) urged in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, that in addition to fixing a minimum price for wheat, a maximum price should also be fixed. It was in the national interests, said Mr. Connolly, that the protection given to the wheat-growing industry should be retained. As the representative of the greatest wheat-growing district in New Zealand, he could assure the House that the growers wero nobly doing their part in providing .wheat at a reasonable price to meet the requirements of the people of New Zealand. They were selling it at 4s 4d a bushel, which was the lowest possible rate at which wheat could be produced. Wheatgrowers were entitled to protection, for there was no other industry which required such a large outlay in order to get a return. ■' . MINISTERS SUFFER? "If the wheat-growers are making such big profits as has been suggested, why don't some of the North Island farmers take it on!" asked Mr. Connolly. He said that it cost as much to land Australian wheat in New Zealand to-day as it did to purchase South Island wheat. The statement had been made that two ex-Ministers of Agriculture had lost their, seats through their advocacy of the sliding scale of duties, and that the present Minister would lose his seat because of the same reason. That was not correct. Former Ministers had not suffered through advocating the duties. , Dealing with the shortage of fowl wheat which took place this year, Mr. Connolly said that the primary responsibility lay with the drought. Instead of growling at the wheatgrower, sympathy should have been shown to 'him. The average yield in Canterbury last year was 24£ bushelsto the acre, whereas' the aver.age for the preceding ten years was 31 bushels. If the farmer had obtained that extra seven bushels last year, it would have paid him. far better than .the extra few pence lie got for fowl wheat. FOWL WHEAT LOWER. Now that the price had been i fixed at 4s 4d for milling wheat, the. wheatgrowers should undertake- to supply fowl wheat at a lower price than that charged for milling wheat. He recognised that the poultry farmers had a real' grievance, and ho thought it unfair to force poultry farmers to pay more. He suggested that first-grade fowl wheat should bs sold £t 4s a bushel, and that this wheat should be analysed for food content at Lincoln College. People would then know that they were obtaining fair value for a fair price. Mr. Connolly predicted that the occasion would come when, due to Vorld conditions, the growers of wheat would be entitled to 7s a bushel. In view of thp protection now given, he thought that the growers should now undertake to accept a maximum price of 5s 6d, and it was this idea,he had in mind when he worked out the original sliding scale of duties. He believed in taking a national view, and ho believed in protecting tho wheatgrower, protecting secondary industries which were on a sound basis, and protecting the work-