THE WHEAT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 125, 22 November 1935, Page 19

THE WHEAT DUTIES

SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

Mr. R. A. Wright addressed the electors at Northland last night at St. Anne's Hall. There was an attendance of 70 and Captain Macindoe presided. At the conclusion of the meeting a unanimous vote of thanks and confidence in the candidate was carried by acclamation.

After dealing with various subjects of interest, Mr, Wright discussed the wheat duties and.said he was glad that people were awakening to the fact that the cost of living had to be reduced. One of the essential things for any fan> ily was bread.

"Whatever else a family has to go without it cannot exist without bread," said Mr. Wright. "Now there is no doubt that the people of New Zealand have to pay too much for their bread, and one of the reasons for this is that the duties on impprted wheat, are too high. They have been imposed for the benefit of wheat farmers, principally in the Canterbury district. The sliding scale that pertains today is certainly an improvement on the fixed duty that once existed, but I want to see the duties on wheat abolished.

"There is absolutely no justification for their existence. That fact was made quite plain by the Tariff Commission which recommended that it, along with numerous other duties, ought to be remedied. Why is there no justification? Because the class of wheat that New Zealand produces is not suitable by itself for the making of bread. No baker will use New Zealand wheat flour alone. It must be mixed with Australian or Canadian flour. Thus the importation of either of those flours is absolutely necessary to us. While the present duty is in existence the people have to pay more for an absolute necessity for their exr istence than is necessary.

"That is a good Government that so arranges its tariff that it does not touch, or very lightly touches, those commodities that are necessary to. the mass of the people. Any Government that does not make it easier for men and women to buy bread cheaply merits the severest criticism. How much more severe ought the criticism to be when it can be clearly proved that the men and women of this country are compelled to pay the duty for the maintenance of a very small class of farmers."