DEAR WHEAT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20626, 26 July 1930, Page 16

DEAR WHEAT.

Sir, —Among the 'lews items broadcast from one of the Sydney radio stations last night was the announcement that wheat growers were somewhat anxious as to tho future# owing to the fact that fifteen million bushels from last harvest still remained unsold, whereas the acreage under crop had been increased to five million acres, which, at twelve bushels to the acre, would mean another sixty million bushels of wheat for disposal. With wheat, flout- and bread at their present prices in New Zealand and such a huge surplus the other side of the Tasman Sea, members of Parliament who uphold the retention of the duties instituted to encourage (he growing of wheat in the South Island surely have cause to feel uncomfortable. 1 believe the duty on imported flour is £7 per ton, or exactly three farthings per lb. What we are consequently paying for bread alone, to benefit the few New Zealand wheat growers, may be left to the imagination. The only members of Parliament who appear to have raised their voices in protest to any extent against this tax on the people are Messrs. Wilkinson (Eginopt) and Lye (Waikato), the former stating that the loaf in New Zealand was dearer than in any other country in tlie world. Xo wonder those engaged in pig and poultry raising complain of the disadvantages under which they labour, with grain and mill " offal" at ruling New Zealand prices. What is wanted is another " repeal of the corn laws." F. W. Greek. Kihikihi, July 23, 1930.

Sir, —Undoubtedly. tho high wheat duties are inflicting a heavy financial burden on tho average family in the Dominion to-day. The retention of these duties is supported by some people under the plea that in the matter of wheatgrowing the Dominion should be self-sup-porting. As a war measure, this may have been necessary, but to-day there is very little justification for their retention, except for the purpose of supplying fat profits to those engage:! in the wheat industry. If wheat cannot bo Kiown at a fair profit without protection, obviously, then, the land should bo used for livestock raising; and, by all means, let us import cheaper and better wheat from Australia. If the wheat-grower and manufacturers are entitled to protection in the form of import duties, then logically the producers of butter-fat wool and meat, who form the 'financial foundation of this country, should be entitled lo receive adequate protection in tlie form of fixed prices for their produe. 1 consumed in New Zealand. \Yliy should certain favoured sections of the community receive protection, while other? h;.vi'. tc stniggle with the law of supply and demand ? " Protect one, protect all," should be quite a good motto. .W.D.