THE WHEAT REPORT

Evening Star, Issue 20321, 1 November 1929, Page 12

THE WHEAT REPORT

PROTECTION OF GROWERS RETENTION OF SLIDING SCALE RECOMMENDED INVESTIGATION OF MILLING AND BAKING COSTS (Per United Press' Association.] WELLINGTON, November 1. The report of the Select Wheat Committee, presented in the House' of Representatives to-day, states: The items of the order of reference on which the committee was instructed to report to the House, and the conclusions of the committee thereon, were as follow’: — (1) Advantages from the national standpoint of a policy of the dominion being self-supporting as far as its wheat requirements are concerned.— The committee is unanimously, of opinion that the dominion should ho selfsupporting so far as its wheat requirements are concerned.

(2) Whether the wheat growers of the dominion require protection or State assistance to enable them to market their product in competition with importations from other countries.—The committee is unanimously of opinion that the wheat grow’ers should have some form of protection. (3) What form of protection or State assistance, if any, would effect that object without unduly adding to the cost of wheat, flour, bread, fowl wheat, and wheat offal to users?—The committee recommends _ that the present sliding scale of duties affecting w’heat and flour be continued, but that bran and pollard be admitted to the dominion free of duty.

(4) Whether protection is required for the flour-milling industry.—The answer to this question is covered by the answers to the preceding questions, but the committee unanimously recommends that the Department of Industries and Commerce bo asked to investigate the operations of the milling industry, with the object of ascertaining whether or not the cost of production of flour can be reduced.

(5) Whether the costs of baking and distribution of bread to consumers arc reasonable or otherwise. —The committee unanimously recommends that, in view of the disparity in the cost of baking and distribution of bread in the various centres, the Department of Industries and Commerce be instructed to investigate the cost of baking and distribution of bread.

Mr Wilkinson presented the report. He said it was in relation to the amount of protection that could be afforded the industry that the committee could not reach agreement. He regretted that the duty on flour and wheat could not be reduced to enable the lowering of the price of bread. Strong organisations were in control of wheat in New Zealand, and it could bo assumed that they would endeavour to extract the highest possible prices from the consumer that competition with the imported article would allow. Mr Waite contended that bread was comparatively cheap in New Zealand, the prices being lower for loaves suhl over the counter than in many other countries. The high cost of Jistnbu tiou was one of the most unsatisfactory features in this, country. If the pub!." wanted an elaborate and costly service, if it wanted fresh bread daily, delivered some miles away at an early hour in the morning, it would have to pay for it. He was satisfied that the sliding scale of wheat duties had not been responsible for any increase in the price of bread.

Mr Carr said the sliding scale had at least eliminated speculation in an essential foodstuff. Ho added that the wheat industry employed more labour than any other branch of farming. Colonel M'Donald said the effect of the sliding scale' was to stabilise the price of bread, but it stabilised it at the highest possible figure. He considered it was time the wheat growers of New Zealand gave up the job and employed their labours in other directions, if they required more than reasonable protection to compete with the Australian growers, whose land was not so productive, and who had to send the product 1.200 miles to New Zealand He moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration.

Mr Lye seconded the amendment. Mr Lysnar asked why the people of New Zealand should he penalised by compelling them to pay £l7 14s per ton as against £l3 10s per ton for flour simply because it was desired to encourage a few farmers to grow wheat The present position was weighted against the consumers of bread. He disagreed with the statement 'that the wheat industry employed more labour than any other branch of farming, Mr M'Combs defended the protection afforded the wheat industry. He pointed out, however, that 'he considered the position could best bo met by a subsidy which, to bo operated properly, would necessitate State ownership and control of the milling industry. Mr M'Pherson declared that the com mittee had reached the right decision in the interests of the whole of the people of Now Zealand. Mr. Sykes said climatic conditions in Canterbury and North Otago were suitable for growing wheat, but would not be as suitable for dairying. It would not be as simple a matter as Colonel M'Donald had stated, for the wheat grower to turn his attention to other branches of the fanning industry. Mr Lye said it was the height of folly to help to build uu a tariff wall between New Zealand and Australia He thought flour production costs could be reduced ‘in the .South Island, if more efficient methods were employed. Mr Armstrong said it appeared the objection to the sliding scale came from those parts of New Zealand which did not grow wheat. It would bo impossible to maintain a decent standard of living for the workers in the industry if it were not afforded some protection. The House adjourney at 1 p.m.