IMPOSTS OF WHEAT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21223, 1 July 1932, Page 13

IMPOSTS OF WHEAT.

EXCEPTION TO THE TERMS.

HANDICAP TO AUCKLAND.

" IMPOSING A TAX ON BREAD."

The arrangements made by the Government for the importation of 850,000 bushels of wheat from Australia, which were announced by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. R. Masters, on Wednesday, were strongly criticised by members of the Chamber of Commerce Council at a meeting yesterday. It was decided to protest against the Government's action in granting the sole importing right to the Wheat Marketing Agency Company,, Limited, and to press for a flat rate of customs duty throughout the Dominion. Mr. Gainor Jackson said the announcement made by the Minister was marked by certain features to which exception should be taken. Two years ago the Government had proceeded against Distributors, Limited, and had lost its case, but it was now granting a monopoly by vesting the importation of wheat at reduced duties in the Marketing Agency Company, a body in Christchurch which consisted of millers and supposedly some growers.

Variation ol Duty.

" The rate of duty under the proposal will be different at each port," continued Mr. Jackson. " The rate to be charged at Auckland will be the rate levied at Lyttelton plus shipping costs from Lyttelton to Auckland, and Auckland will be under a handicap. This is a completely new phase of customs activity which should be combated." Mr. Jackson mentioned that there was no variation in the rate on sugar, which was manufactured in Auckland, and a uniform price was maintained throughout the Dominion. " Although the duty on wheat has been regarded as a protective tariff, this duty is now a revenue tariff during the shortage, and that at a time when poverty stalks the land," he continued. " The Government is imposing a tax on bread."

The poultry industry could be developed into a profitable export industry if fowl wheat were available at a reasonable price. Fowl wheat could be landed at Auckland duty free at 4s 7d a bushel from Australia, but under the present duty poultry farmers were compelled to pay 6s 3d a bushel for inferior South Island wheat.

Mr. Jackson moved that a protest should be made against the granting of the sole importing right afc the lower duty to one firm, and a flat rate of duty t irrespective of the place or the purpose for which tho wheat was imported, should be sought.

No Exchange Advantage.

** It is a pity that the Government's solicitude for the growers and millers should be extended like this by Mr. Masters," said Mr. A. G. Lunn. "It seems to me that if Auckland has to pay a higher rate for wheat under certain circumstances it should have the benefit of any little reduction when it is necessary to import. Bread should be cheaper, and it could be if it were not for the iniquitous duty. Ido not say there should be no duty, but the Government is unfair to single out one industry for such preferential treatment." Mr. Jackson remarked that the advantage to be gained from the present rate of exchange with Australia had not been passed on, the Government taking the benefit of it. This amounted to a furl her duty of up to 14 per cent. Mr. Jackson's motion was carried.