DUTY ON WHEAT

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 223, 21 August 1931, Page 9

DUTY ON WHEAT

SLIDING SCALE DISCUSSED

Per Press Association

WELLINGTON, Aug. 20. When a motion was submitted to the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Conference last night supporting the sliding scale of wheat duties, it was favourably discussed by some of the delegates. It was then pointed out that no motion could be submitted, unless by unanimous consent, as due notice had not been given prior to the conference. The president, Mr G. Finn, Auckland, agreed that such was the case, and while not putting the motion, said had it been in order it would nave been carried by a large majority of delegates. The motion submitted by Mr I. Woolf, Canterbury, was: “That this conference supports the sliding scale of wheat duties, and considers that the wheat industry should receive such protection as is necessary to maintain the welfare of an essential industry vital to the welfare of the Dominion. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister and to the Press of New Zealand.”

Mr Woolf read a lengthy extract from evidence given before the Wheat Commission showing the importance of the industry to Canterbury and Otago, and the amount of labour engaged directly and indirectly by the industry. lie realised that there was some opposition from the poultry industry, but there were over 6000 wheatgrowers, while there were only about '3O individuals affected wlio made a living entirely by poultry farming If the wheat industry was not carried on it would mean ruin to Canterbury and Otago for some years to come. He appealed to delegates to look at the matter from a national and not a provincial aspect. No industry responded so quickly to protection as the wheat industry. To-day the farmer only received 4d out of the price of the 41b loaf, the balance representing labour, delivery and profit. What w r as best for the Dominion, the importer or the manufacturer? If they could not help the wheat grower, then they should let all foreign wheat come in and Russian butter also. Through Russian dumping wheat was at the lowest price for 150 years. Mr F. L. Hutchinson (Christchurch) seconded the motioir, saying that an economist had worked out what was gained by having a cheap loaf and found that the gain to the Dominion was about £250,000. He then worked out the other side and found that the loss to the Dominion by allowing cheap stuff to come in, was £500,000. They should maintain wheatgrowing as a matter of principle. The president, Mr G. Finn, Auckland, agreed that to take away the duty would endanger the wheat industry of Canterbury. Many in the North Island were opposed to the wheat duty, but he was not. He knew the price had been on the high side, but that had now been rectified. Wheat growing was essential for Canterbury, for no other crop could take its place, and it was the crop which enabled the farmer to use liis time throughout the year. Could they imagine wlrat it would mean to the manufacturers of the Dominion if the duties were removed ?

Mr S. Talde, Auckland: This motion lias been sprung on tlie conference, and I am not prepared to- vote on it.

The secretary, Mr J. Findlay, Auckland,, drew the attention of the conference to the rules which provide that no question shall be decided or voted upon unless communicated as a remit to all associations one month before the conference. Questions not covered by remits may be discussed, but no resolution put unless with the unanimous consent of all affiliated associations whether represented at the conference or not. Mr Woolf: We should show the farmers of New Zealand that we are sincere in our goodwill toward any New Zealand industry Mr F. Campbell, Wellington, moved that a vote be taken, suggesting that Mr Takle should refrain from voting.

Mr Findlay said that the Government had already reached a decision in the matter, and there was no need for the federation to pass a remit. Further, they bad no instructions from the Auckland branch, and could not commit that association.

Mr Woolf suggested that the motion be put and a majority vote taken, any objection being noted. The president ruled that the motion could not be put, but had it been sent forward in time as a remit he thought it would have been carried by an overwhelming majority.