THE WHEAT QUESTION

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1931, Page 7

THE WHEAT QUESTION

• Mr H. E. Holland's Speech Speaking on the wheat question in the House of R epreset at ives, Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, said: ’ ’There is room for many viewpoints regarding the wheat duties, but it seems to me that those duties are not the only problem so far as the price of bread, is concerned. What is wanted is a comprehensive investiga- , tion of the whole position—an investigation into prices and the production and distribution of wheat, the wheat duties and the production and distri button of flour with a view to ensur- 1 ing adequate supplies of wheat and • flour in New Zealand at reasonable, price while at the same time guaranteeing an adequate return to the men | who are working as wheat farmers, and standard wages to the men who are employed on the wheat farms. We. could abolish the wheat duties to-mor-1 row without solving the problem. I. am one of those who think that, while • there is ample room for the discussion . of, and investigation into the wheat 1 duties, w r e should not remove those duties until we have something to put in their place. There are hundreds of j wheat farmers, men who have bought' their plants and stocked their farms with a view of wheat production. There are also hundreds of men engaged as wage-workers on the wheat farms; and these will have to be considered in whatever action is taken. “The eternal question of freetrade and protection will always arise whenever a question is discussed, and it makes a most interesting study. The bootmaker is an out-and-out protectionist so fa r as the boot industry is concerned, but when it comes to bread he wants freetrade. The poultry-farm- .• er is an out-and-out protectionist in regard to the introduction of egg pulpl I into this country, but he is a freetrader i n relation to his wheat supp- , lies. I could furnish innumerable il- ; lustrations of that kind. But it seems to me that it is the business of this House to strike a medium. Only the 1 other day we had a demand from the Chamber of Commerce at Auckland | for the abolition or a substantial reduc- i lien cf the wheat duties, and yet almost every member of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce will be a protectionist so far as the secondary Indus-| tries are concerned. ‘ “This is undoubtedly a wheat-pro-i bducing country, and it would be a grave ; ] mi stake. if we were to abandon wheat Ifarming altogether. It is true that we dean now import wheat from Australia 3 at a much cheaper price than we can it in New Zealand, but we Jhave to remember that Australian [ wheat is being sold at below the cost of production, while many of the farmers arc almost starving. In addition to that, every wheat-growing coun'trv has its own problem at this moment, bin this country there is repeatedly a ■ swing-over from one line of production » to another according to how prices II follow demand. We saw during the Iwar years how wheat-farming was in a number of cases in ! favour of the meat and wool production and dairy farming. Wheat production went down considerably as a result. iNow we have a great over-production “'of wheat in many countries, where ’(there are millions of bushels stored in Ithe silos. Much of this surplus wid probably never be marketed, and the ’experiences of Australia in 1914 may > be repeated notwithstanding the pro- , vision that has been made in that great country for the storage of surplus supplies. It will be remembered that in 1916, when there, was an immense Australian over-production of wheat, ,thousands of tons were destroyed by Imice and by the ordinary processes of ‘decay largely because there were no ‘(facilities for storage. Since- then silos fhave been provided throughout the (wheat-growing arcas7 and also in Syd\ney, and these can hold a quantity of Jgr ii far greater than the whole wheatproduction of New Zealand. The Byd- . ney silos alone will hold about seven million bushels, and, notwithstanding that these are filled to over-flowing., there is still a huge quantity which cannot be stored. But, if by allowing .that wheat to come into New Zealand I we submerged our own farmers, we 'jshould not solve any problem. If we I succeed in bringing the price of bread z down by a penny a loaf this year, it would not help us much if next year or the year following the price should be raised to 1/2 or 1/4. I understand that' the price of the 41b loaf in Christchurch and various areas is about !/-• So far as I can learn from such figures • as a r e available, the farmer gets about fourpence out of that shillings. It is all very well to investigate the four- ' pence received by the farmer, but it 1 is equally necessary to investigate the I balance of eightpence and ascertain . how it. is distributed. “Tn the report relating to flour, which is before us, it is stated that the average, cost of the manufacture of flour could be reduced, and the report further indicates that the concentration c-f manufacture in the more efficient mills would eliminate much of the overhead expense with which the industry is at present burdened. It ’ is thus clear from the report of the Department of (Industries and Commerce that c-ne of the handicaps we are up against is out-of-date methods of Hour production. But, in addition j to that, we have the problem of Dis- , tributors, Limited, and this is very • lightly touched upon by the Department. Any investigation into the manufacture of flour in New Zealand must take into consideration the part {played by this firm. Only the other ' day a letter which came from the disI trict represented by the hon. member for Mataura conveyed the information’ that when the local bakers wished to reduce the price of bread they were notified by Distributors Limited, thati if they did not restorc the price to its original level the price of flour to them I would be raised considerably or their' supplies would be cut off altogether. I I found something similar occurring in my o.w n district not many months i ago. This combine refuses to permit ’ the bakers to reduce the price of bread | even when they wish to do so. That I is certainly a case for investigation. | 1 saw a statement in a Christchurch I paper some time back in March in ■ which it was set forth that wheat' ' was delivered to the mills in Canter-.

bury at 5/5 per bushel, converted into ’ flour which was sold at £l6/15/- a ton, and reached the consumer in the , form of bread at one shilling per fourpound loaf. 1 cannot vouch fo r these figures. Hoa members from Canter--1 bury will know whether they are correct. ’ ’ Mr D. Jones; “They are about right.” Mr Holland: “It seems fairly clear then, that if the whole duty were removed, and nothing else were done, the saving would not represent more than about 1/- per week to the average householder. I want to urge that something more than an investigation into the wheat duties is needed. We should have an investigation that will cover the whole range of the production and distribution of wheat; the production and distribution of flour; the prices of wheat, flour, and bread; and 1 the wages of the employees together with the returns to the wheat-farmers. I hope the House will get down to busi- : noss and do something in this direction. 1 if not in the present session, early in . the session which is to follow.’’