THE WHEAT DUTIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21285, 12 September 1932, Page 13

THE WHEAT DUTIES

Sir, —Your correspondent fronK Canterbury, Mr. F. Lye, seeks to justify the wheat duties by stating that the poultry industry itself is protected by a duty of 4d lb. on imported egg pulp. That is so, but it is not sufficient that that industry should cater only for the whole of our own requirements, which, though rarely reached, seems to bo the ultimate aim of the wheat-growing industry of the country. Their policy apparently is, "Why bother about the export field when one 1 has such a highly profitable domestic , I market available for_ wheat?" That policy, however, is detrimental to the best j interests of the country and is retarding i the progress of other industries, which with reasonable facilities fof the purchase of cheap grain, could become of great im- j portance in the export field. Instead of four million head of poultry New Zealand could run man}? millions more, and tho preferential treatment accorded by Great Britain to Dominion, egg products ensures a protected market if only we avail ourselves of it. Mr. Lye is in asserting that the duty on wheat imported into New Zealand is lower than that imposed by Continental countries. The facts are these:—The New Zealand Government, under its sliding scale of | duties, accords a direct protection to the New Zealand wheatgrower of 5s 8d per bushel, in addition to which there is the cost of transtasman freight of 10£ d per bushel, making the effective protection 6s 6£d per bushel. Not satisfied with this, the Customs Department commandeers the whole of the exchange premium as an antidumping duty. At the present time exchange «rates on Australia are £l3 12s 6d por cont in New ZenlandV favour. For some months past wheat has been selling on rail, country stations,, in South Australia and Victoria, at an average price of 2s 6d per bushel. Inland freight and f.o.b. charges amount to 8d per busheL Transtasman freight and landing charges. lOJrd per bushel.. Duty (at 3s 2d CD. value at port of shipment) is 2s 6d per bushel, making tho landed cost 6s bid por bushel. This shows an effective protection of 162 per cont against wheat grown in Australia, and when the antidumping exchange duty is added the protection against ' Australian-grown wheat amounts to over 175 por cont. Surely this j 3 oxcossive prpoction on a staplo commodity such as wheat, which is not only the staff of life for our peoplo, but an essential foodstuff for two important industries. And whorevor lies tho necessity for 6uch ultra protection whon tho yield por acre in New Zealand is three timos that of Australia. It cannot be said that living conditions in that country are of a lower standard than in New Zealand. The North Island produces only 2 por cent of the wheat grown in this country, yet it is being called upon to pay tribute to the South, while industries of much gj eater potential value to the whole country are boing denied the right to expand. Wake np, North Islanders, the wheat, duties must be abolished with, a view to cheaper bread and cheaper stock foods. Gainor. Jackson*