FOWL WHEAT PRICES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21342, 17 November 1932, Page 13

FOWL WHEAT PRICES

AUSTRALIAN SHIPMENTS

RETAIL PROFITS ALLEGED

EXPLANATION BY MINISTER

[BY TELEGRAni —SPECIAL REPORTER]

WELLING TON, Wednesday

.An item of £25,400 for the purchase of fowl wheat in Australia gave rise to a brief discussion in the House to-day when the estimates of the Department of Industries and Commerce were under consideration.

Mr. R. Somplo (Labour —Wellington East) asked for further information regarding the purchase. He asked at what price was the wheat bought, at what price was it sold and who got the "rakeoff." The sample of the wheat which he had received was of very poor quality, and ho wished to know who received the profits when the wheat was retailed.

The Minister in charge of the vote, the Hon. .A. Hamilton, said that actually there was a credit from the sale of wheat to the balance outgoing of £25,400. The wheat itself was imported through the Auckland market. Ho did not think the middlemen received any more profit than they did on wheat sent to Auckland from Canterbury. Mr. Semple: I understand that the wheat was sold on the wharf at Auckland for 5s 3d and 5s 6d a bushel ?

Mr. Hamilton: It was sold on the same basis as wheat from the South.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour —Auckland Suburbs) : Could you not have imported it into Auckland on the same basis as the Canterbury prices ? Mr. Hamilton: There was no "rakeoff," as it has been called. If there was any, the Government received it, that is, the Customs Department. Mr. Mason: That's the point. Mr. Hamilton repeated that no one but the Government would share in the profits.

Mr. Seinplc: I think the Government got nioio tlian its share. Mr. Mason said the Minister had explained that the Government had sold the wheat at the price it had in order to maintain tlio standard price in New Zealand. There was, however, another point to be considered. Wheat which cost, say, 4s 9d a bushel at Lyttelton cost another shilling, or 5s 9d when transported to Auckland. If it was imported from' Australia for 2s 6d a bushel, lie did not claim that the Government should sell it for 2s 6d, but merely that they might have enough pity for the public of Auckland to sell it at the ruling Canterbury price.

The Minister: That would knock out Canterbury wheat altogether. Mr. Mason: Not necessarily, because the amount was limited. I am not suggesting any alteration in the quantity of wheat to be imported, but simply that Auckland people should not be punished simply because tliey happen to be a long way from Canterbury. The Minister said that the wheat was delivered in Auckland at 5s 3d a bushel, which lie thought was cheaper, than the price of wheat from the south. In addition, some assistance had been given to Auckland people by lowering the price a little. If they went too far, there would be trouble. They had already lowered the Canterbury parity for Auckland people.