DISTRIBUTION OF FLOUR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19321, 7 May 1926, Page 12

DISTRIBUTION OF FLOUR

FIRM DEPRIVED OF AGENCY, MEMBER'S PUBLIC POSITION. OPPOSITION TO MILLERS' CLAIMS TARANAKI CHAMBER PROTESTS. [BY TELEOUAriT. — OWN correspondent. ] ( NEW PLYMOUTH. Thursday. What was termed by a member "an act of commercial autocracy" was brought under the. notice of tho Taranaki Chamber of Commerce at to-night's meeting by the president, Mr. Gordon Fraser, who made the following statement regarding tho action of tho flourmilLrs' combine in striking a New Plymouth wholesale firm off its list of distributors:— "Tho strong agitation by this chamber, in conjunction with tho farmers' unions of Taranaki, for the removal of tho embargo on tho import of flour was, as members know, strongly supported throughout tho North Island. Tho Government finally decided" to permit importation provided a duty of £3 a ton was paid. Notwithstanding high wages and short hours in Australia, the price ruling there has been such as to enable importers to pay tho duty and freight and yet sell in New Zealand considerably under the price tho local flour combination was prepared to take. "Consequently very largo quantities have come into tho North Island, including direct shipments to Taranaki. Last week a Canterbury deputation was organised to endeavour to persuade the Government to increase tho duty ori flour to £4 a ton or reimposo tho total prohibition of tho import of flour and so eliminate this outside competition. "Heavy Hand of a Trust." "Owing, I presume, to the fact that I have again and again called tho attention of the chamber to tho injustice of using the taxpayers' money to increase the cost of his daily bread, the flourmillers' combine has singled out the firm with which I am associated, and after 35 years in the trade it has been struck off the list of wholesale distributors. It appears to me like the heavy hand of a trust determined to show that its commission buys not only the commercial activities of a firm, but tho silence of its individual members engaged in public life. "In spite of these paltry methods of attack, we must continue to call attention to tho largo discrepancy between the price of wheat and flour in Australia and in this Dominion, and to urge the Government to inquire closely whether the present high protection is warranted. We must certainly vigorously protest against any suggestion of still heavier burdens being placed on the bread consumer. Mr. Fraser added that he had not quoted any figures owing to the variation of the Australian market. At present Australian wheat ranged from 63 to &s 6VJ a bushel f.0.b., s.i., Australian port:;. While at 6s 5d for wheat, Australian flour sold at £l2 12s 6d f.0.b., s.i.. in New Zealand, 6s 8d sacks' extra for wheat was considered by the combine in charge, backed by tho Government, to be equal to £lB, less' discount for flour. That was a discrepancy that needed investigating. Vindie ti?e Retaliation. "The working of this combine is the whole secret of high prices," said Mr. P. E. Stainton, who remarked that whne Australian mills were working full time, there were too many mills in the Dominion and a false position was being bolstered up by shortened hours of operation. Some mills*were working only six or eight hours a day, with a consequent increase of oveihead charges; and' the combine was brought into existence in order that these mills might bo saved from a fate similar to that which overtook many freezing companies. The present action was, in j his opinion, an attempt.' at vindictive retaliation, and as such should bo taken in hand by t\e chamber from a public point of view. If such an act hiid been brought j about by a labour organisation the very j people responsible in thi3 case would be j howling from the housetops for Labour j members to be removed from the country. , Mr. J. McNeill said that every houso j in New Zealand was importing Australian j flour because of the lower price, and the turnover on the New Zealand articlo must have fallen considerably■ in consequence. To his mind, it appeared to be a deliberate attempt at victimisation. Mr. Stainton: An act of commercial autocracy. Mr. Stainton thereupon moved that a stronglv-worded protest be sent to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, setting out the position fully, and also that a sub-committee bo appointed to prosecute this protest to a definite and satisfactory conclusion. Mr. McNeill seconded. Being an interested person, Mr. Fraser said lie was not prepared to put a resolution, but the motion was put by the secretary. and was carried unanimously. The sub-committee appointed comprised j Messrs. McNeill, Nisbet, 'Smith and Stain- j ton.