DUTIES ON WHEAT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 289, 3 November 1934, Page 9

DUTIES ON WHEAT

THE SLIDING SCALE. ASSOCIATED - CHAMBERS’ DISCUSSION. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 2. After a long discussion on a sliding scale of wheat duties at the annual conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, a proposal to abolish the duties was rejected. A remit was submitted by the Auckland chamber as follows:’ “That this conference urges on the Government the desirability of putting into force the recommendation of the Tariff Commission in favour of the replacement of a sliding scale of duties on wheat and flour by reduced duties on a specific basis.” South Island delegates strongly opposed the remit, sajmg. that a reduction in duties would mean calamity for the industry. Mr A. G. Lunn, moving the remit, said there was a strong feeling of discontent in a large part of the North Island at the continuance of duties. He argued that an injustice to the whole community should not be continued for the benefit of a small section. Citizens of New Zealand had paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the higher prices gained by wheat growers, while some of the surplus wheat had been sold overseas at less than half the price at which other wheat was sold in New Zealand. The pig and poultry industries meanwhile, said Mr Lunn, had been particularly hit by the wheat dutios. Mr Gainor Jackson (Auckland), in seconding the remit, said the wheat grower was afforded protection not only by duties but also by transit charges. The total effective protection was 6s 6}d a bushel. This was not fully effective because of over-production within the industry. Mr C. H. Hewlett said that if wheat growing were to cease they would have to convert a quarter of a million acres from wheat growing to tho production of butterfat, wool, and meat and put them on an already glutted British market. If the Auckland proposal were put into effect it would at once create unemployment and ultimately reduce prices for North Island mutton, lamb, wool, and butter. Mr W. Macliin (Christchurch) disputed Mr Jackson’s estimate of the total protection of wheat; 6s 6)<l was, he said, an absurd figure. The actual protection duty was a bushel. He denied that the price of bread and wheat products in New Zealand was high. Mr R. K. Ireland said the remit if carried into effect would increase the price of wheat. The industry had been able to supply 70,000 tons of bran and pollard to pig and poultry industries at rates competitive with the world’s markets.

Mr A. F. Wright suggested that the agitation against duties came from Auckland trading interests, not from the pig and poultry industries. The remit was lost on the voices.