WHEAT DUTIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21273, 29 August 1932, Page 13

WHEAT DUTIES

Sir, —From time to time I notice ridiculous statements regarding the effect of,,the wheat duties are made by correspondents, and last Saturday the letter by " Forward Auckland" was no exception. Surely ho does not believe that the whole of the 7s 6d or 8s 6d per bushel that ho pays for wheat goes to the wheatgrower. A friend of mine-in the grain business informs mo that a great deal of good wholo fowl wheat was sold to Auckland merchants this year at 4s to 4s 3d f.o.b. Lyttelton. It costs just under Is per bushel to land this wheat in Auckland. I suggest to " Forward Auckland" that ho should ask himself who gets tho difference between, say, 5s 3d and the price lie pays. Further, 1 am informed that the price of wheat in Australia to-day is 3s 6d per bushel. How can " Forward Auckland" buy this delivered in Auckland at 3s to 3s 6d ? Also, docs he think the merchant will be content to sell Australian wheat without profit? D. Lye. Linwood, Christchurch. Sir, —Your correspondent " i orward Auckland" quotes some interesting figures. I presume they are correct. The f.o.b. price for wheat after last harvest was 4s 9d per bushel for over 90 per cent of the variety grown. Your correspondent states that from 7s 6d to 8s 6d was paid by part of tho population. Now, taking an average of Bs, the difference between that figure and the f.o.b. price is exactly what ho says imported wheat could have been landed for. According to his figures, transport alone equals what tho cost of tho imported article would be duty free. Does ho blame tho duty for cost of transport ? Surely charges from Lyttelton should not bo more than from Canada or Australia. Supposing all protection were removed, what would your correspondent suggest we should export to balunce the million odd pounds wo would bo sending out of the country every year for wheat? 1 am very much afraid the Canterbury wheatgrower, under present costs, could not afford to lot you have your wheat at from 3s to 3s &d. Any suggestion to the effect that tno cessation of wlieatgrowing would alleviate unemployment is, of course, nonsense. WiIEATGIIOVVEII. Canterbury, August 25, 1932. Sir, —i think that the thanks of the farming community are 'due to "ExFarmer" for Ills reply to "1.X.L." Auckland can produce plenty of tuscan. J remember in tho years gone by when Mr. Virtue offered to buy every bushel of wheat that could be produced within 50 miles of Auckland. Ho did not receive much encouragement. The poultry farmer could certainly help himself by planting a few acres, but he will not be bothered. "Ex-Farmer" has shown that responsible officers of the Poultry Association stated in evidence that they were aiming at a fixed price of 2s a dozen for eggs. Why should they object to tho protection of the wheat grower? If eggs were fixed at 2s a dozen tho baker and housewife would have to bo content with powder substitutes. Would that bo a good thing for the Dominion? Nothing must be permitted to kill an industry that is worth £2,500,000 to the Dominion. Drought-ridden Australia cannot ho depended upon to meet our requirements. We must have stability of supply. Fair Play.