CLOSING N.Z. MILLS

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3282, 27 February 1926, Page 9

CLOSING N.Z. MILLS

IN FAVOUR OF AUSTRALIAN Failings of the Wheat Scheme WAGES AND COSTS CROSS THE TASMAN Millers of both Islands held a camera conference at Christchurch yesterday. A report subsequently issued charged the Government, inter alia, with deliberately continuing to “protect” New Zealand wheat after the crop had been ascribed, [Per Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night. A conference of millers’ representative of both Islands was held to-day, in camera. Subsequently, a report was Issued, In which it was stated that the Government scheme provides for legislation differentiating between fowl and milling wheat Further,' It was held that the Government scheme deliberately .closed New) Zealand mills in favour of Australian. Offer Rejected.

The report went on to outline the millers’ last minute pffer to the Government as follows—

“(1) The millers guaranteed Hot to Increase the present prices of Hour, bran and pollard.

“(2) The millers guaranteed to pay the farmers minimum prices or 6/9, 6/10 and 7/- f.o.b. and to buy and take delivery of the whole of the crop by June, .1926. “(3) The Government to impose the embargo on Australian flour and import the deficiency of wheat for poultry and milling purposes." Advantages of IMlllers’ Scheme.

Millers claimed the following advantages for their scheme: —

(1) The general public was protected. the prices of flour and bread remaining the same. (2) The dairy and poultry industries were benefited, the present favourable prices of £8 for bran and £9 for pollard, f.o.b. were continued, and supplies of offal were assured in the country, (8) New Zealand mills and workers would be kept going full time. What the Government Has Done.

In contrast to tho, advantages of tne millers’ proposal, millers asserted that the Hon. O. J. Hawken’s scheme has the following disadvantages:— (1) Substantial increase in the prices of bran and pollard to the Australian parity, of some 30/- to 40/per ton, and supplies most seriously jeopardised. (2) Differential legislation cancelling the duty on poultry wheat, but imposing it on wheat imported for bread. (3) Deliberately continuing to "protect” New Zealand wheat after the New Zealand crop has been ascribed, charging 1/3 per bushel duty on Australian milling wheat, and forcing New Zealand mills to close down and to send wages and manufacturing costs to Australian mills, without any advantage to the New Zealand consumer.