COST OF THE LOAF

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 August 1936, Page 7

COST OF THE LOAF

POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

[PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, August 7.

■ The House met at 10.30 a.m. It was agreed that .written replies to questions should be discussed on Tuesday afternoon next, instead of Wednesday. Mr. Savage explained that it was proposed to resume the Budget debate on Tuesday night, and go straight ahead with it. He assured Mr. Forbes that the House would be given an opportunity to discuss defence, at a suitable opportunity. The House proceeded to discuss the Board of Trade Act Order in Council, fixing the price of bread. Mr. Forbes said that with the rising industrial costs and shortening hours, the prices fixed did not allow bakers to carry on their businesses at a profit. Bakers wanted io know whether their case would receive special consideration. He said that wheat growing was not a very profitable occupation, and the increase of fourpence a bushel would, in no way, compensate the wheatgrower for the increased costs he would have to face. He referred to the difficulty farmers would have to face in securing labour, owing to the wages paid on public works. He predicted a substantial rise in the price of wheat next season, and he asked whether the Government had taken that fact into consideration, in fixing the price of bread.

Mr. Savage said the whole question was one of equitable distribution, and the Minister had given much thought to it. Bakers had asked for a fixation of the price of bread to prevent cut-throat competition. It was the duty of the Government to see that industries received a fair share of the buying power that was available, in the hands of the people, and to prevent some people getting more than their share, because they were better organised than others. The Government had to see that people who were already getting more than their share, were not going to get still more, because wages had been raised, and hours reduced. All cases would have to be decided on their merits.

Mr. Armstrong said the thing that would hit the bakers was that, in 1931, not so much night-work was done, as was done at present, owing to the law passed in 1932, enabling them to break down existing practices. The bakers, as a result, had night rates cut down from 4/- an hour to 2/6, and work that was previously done during the day was done at night. The bakers’ case was shortly coming before the Arbitration Court, when matters could be adjusted. He was of opinion that the bakers, through having a guaranteed price : were in a better position now than they had even been in their lives. Mr. Armstrong contended that the bakers to-day, were receiving as much for bread as they did in 1931. lie said it was necessary that New Zealand should be self contained so far as wheat growing was concerned, and it would be better that the people of New Zealand should pay a little more for bread than that New Zealand should import all the wheat she required, Mr. Kylo referred to the hard time wheatgrowers were having. Mr. Sullivan said he was satisfied there was an enormous amount of

WILD TALK GOING ON

in regard to price increases. All the talk was about the increases that weregoing to come, and if they did not come, nobody would be more disappointed than the members of the Opposition. Ho agreed that wheatgrowers should be encouraged, and if they were not treated reasonably there would be difficulties regarding the supply of wheat. He claimed that in fixing the price of bread, the Government did have in mind the welfare of the consumers. He admitted that the bakers were tied down to a pretty tight margin. Nevertheless, the price cutter was eliminated and he had been the bugbear of the trade for many years. The bakers had been well satisfied with the treatment, except from the price point of view. The Government was endeavouring to benefit all those engaged in the trade. Anomalies were gradually being removed, and those engaged in the wheatgrowing, flourmilling and baking industries did not want the present arrangement upset. He thought it might be necessary, as the result of the Arbitration Court proceedings to allow a small increase in the price of bread. Mr Wilkinson said .it was apparent there was going to be an increase in price, and it would place a severe burden on the consumer. The Minister seemed to be more concerned in getting the wheatgrower a. price for his wheat, and the baker a price for his bread, than over the price to the consumer. The price to-day was already higher than in other parts of the world, and any increase would make

THE PRICE TOO HIGH

for the workers' pocket. It was a question of the cost of living. More consideration must be given to the purchaser of goods. Mr Sullivan: I do not think it will be necessary to make any increase in Taranaki. There arc only two or three places, mostly in the South Island, where small increases will ho necessary.

Mr Neilson said that many city bakeries had installed machines which were able to turn out more bread than the cities could consume, and as a result these bakeries by working practically a night shift, sent their vans miles out into the country, and competed with country bakers, who were opposed to night baking. Mr Denham said that the average person in New Zealand ate less than a penny worth of bread a day so that the increase in price of bread was of very small concern, when all was said, and done. He said that the delivery added considerably to the cost of bread. The matter was referred to the Government for consideration. Discussing the wheat regulations under the Board of Trade Act Mr McCombs referred to the importation of Canadian wheat, and said that consideration did not appear to have

'been given to growing suitable varietiios of wheat in New Zealand, to replace Canadian wheat. He said that lit would be necessary to pay a. higher price to the wheatgrower to grow these particular varieties, otherwise it. would not pay them to do so. Mr Wilkinson asked if the wheat industry was standing up to its obligations regarding the area sown. He said that notwithstanding the enormous protection given the wheat farmer, he was not standing up to his obligations to deliver the goods. He should be

COMPELLED TO SOW ENOUGH

wheat to supply New Zealand requirements. He understood that sufficient wheat could be grown to supply all I hat. New Zealand required and more. Mr Sullivan said there were special circumstances accounting for the lower supply of New Zealand wheat in the present year. He thought the time would soon come when New Zealand would be able to supply wheat suitable for millers’ requirements without importing any wheat at all. He paid a tribute to the work being done at the Wheat Research Institute. Every endeavour was being made to reach that stage in the shortest possible time. Despite what had been done in recent years, there was still not enough encouragement given to farmers to grow more wheat, and lie thought the increase in price given was justified. . Mr Dickie: Why not import wheat? Mr Sullivan said that was what he had in mind, but before acting he had to be sure first they could grist Canadian wheat in New Zealand.

Mr Kyle alleged that some millers had not been playing the game, and they should be brought to book. The millers had never been on a better wicket.

Mr Forbes said he could not understand the difference in price between the amount the grower received and the amount paid by the consumer. The grower received four or five shillings a bushel, which made nearly twenty loaves, and these returned the baker nearly £l.