CHEAP BREAD

New Zealand Times, 12 September 1907, Page 5

CHEAP BREAD

REGULATION OF PRICES - IMPORTANT MINISTERIAL PROPOSALS. STATEMENT BY THE PREMIER. Last night when the Honse of Representatives reached the item in the tariff schedule dealing with cereals. Sir, Joseph Ward made an important announcement of forthcoming legislation to regulate the price of bread and potatoes. Sir Joseph informed the House that he wished to make a statement regarding the item “flour," which was included in tho portion of the schedule under discussion. He knew that some members were desirous of faking off the duty of .£1 a ton upon flour, thus admitting it free. This removal of the duty on flour would mean the removal of the duty upon wheat, because one could not be put. upon tho free list -without the other, except to the detriment of bread consumers. If the duty was removed from flour it must be quite clear that there would be no hope of flour milling being carried on in New Zealand. MILLERS AND THE FARMER. Our wheat growers were largely dependent upon tho sale to the local millers. He was one of those who Wanted to sea bread cheap in New Zealand, It was a most. important article of food, and it was most desirable that it be free from the possibility of combinations which would keep it up at a fictitious price. Tho quantity of wheat exporreu from New' Zealand in 1905 was 967,151 bushels, and in 1906 the total export was 61,199 bushels. The quantity of wheat grown in New Zealand during the season 1905-6 was 6,798,931 bushels, and in 1906-7 it was 5,605,252 bushels, so that in 1905 there were 5,800,000 bushels grown in New Zealand which were consumed by the local mills, while the quantity consumed locally in the following season was 5,500,000 bushels. Thus it war quite clear that ■in the event ol taking the duty off flour, and con* scquently off wheat, that these fanner* who were growing wheat in -New Zealand would have to send the greater proportion of their product out of New Zea. land, depending upon the markets of the Older World tor its consumption. If they continued to grow wheat, which ha doubted, the price would to a large extent be governed by the price in urn don. It was well known that New Zealand was never .able to compete upotr even terms, so far aa condition was concemed, consequently the price obtained in London for wheat from the BaltK and Australia was higher than that obtainable for New Zealand wneai, which could not be relied upon to turn out n> fit condition to compete with other countries which produced a hard-oondibaned. wheat. , . ■

at the meeot of trusts. If the duty was taken off, how was the colony to got its wheat?. It would have to depend upon Australian or Loniojpman wheat exporters, and if we were to have cheap flour and bread m New Zealand, he feared the proposal to abolish the flour duty altogether -would put ue out of the frying-pan into the fire, because the.country; would then be in the hands of a combination, of any number of persons who chose to raase the prices. Mr T. Mackenzie: The Sugar Trust 1 The Premier said that, under the circumstances he had just indicated, the country would he in the hands of the great wheat-buying rings which existed in every country. The millers would not be in the hands of the local producers, over whose actions the Government had some control, but in the hands of pcopls outside, over whom there was no control whatever. For thdi reason he was per* snaded that it would.be a. huge mistake as a matter of policy, under a beliet that we were - going to cheapen bread, to take the duty off wheat as a remedy against high prices in "New Zealand, THE MILLING'INDUSTRY. He wished also to deal with the probable effect upon the milling industry. At the end of 1906 there were s*o people employed in flourmills, while the capital invested was .£*11,658. Those who believed it was of greater consequence, to do what was required in the interest of the many should think of the oonditioaa of those who were employed, or bad capital invested in , the industry. The removal of the duty upon, flour not oily affected the men employed in; the towns, but the men employed at the thxeshingmills. those carting 1 wheat from the farms to the railway stations, and in the conveyance of cool to the mills. He had no hesitation in Baying that if the industry he was speaking of was dislocated. several thousand persona would be out of employment. He would b* well inside tbe mark if he put the figures at *OOO or 5000 persons, so that it was a serious matter, not to. be lightly entered upon. Tbe duty upon flour in Australia was 50s a ton against our exporters. a prohibitive duty, and during the years of drought which had taken place in Australia, to , . his knowledge there bad never been an instance whew the Australian Governments or Parita. meats removed the' duty against out siders, even When flour attained the ah normally high price of .£ls a tea. .

A MISTAKEN POLICY. He (the Premier) had no interest in flam mill mg or wheat growing, but he wish* ed to warn the people who were advoesh . ing the removal of the flour duty that ’■ they would find, if that policy was weafc ly yielded to, tlmt the' very people th*s were trying to serve would tie very quickly the ones to suffer, and in the long ran, to suffer severely. The tendency in Near Zealand was to give up - the growing ot wheat, and if the duty was taken off flour, depend upon it the farmers whs were growing the cereal would abandon it, and go in for the easier method ot running stock upon their farms. Hi thought it was the duty of Parliament to ensure that what really ought to bs the goal of those who were urging tha removal of the duties was the charging of a fair price by the flour millers and bakers in proportion to the price they were paying for wheat, and he thought the proper course for Parliament to fob low was not to attempt upon a Customs tariff to settle such an important industrial question, so far-reaching, but to let the Government bring down independent legislation, so that when flour readied a certain price, power could be given to the Governor-in-Council to remove the duty on flour, so long as that high' price continued. (Hear, hear.) - A SLIDING SCALE. Then, for the purpose of protecting those who were manufacturing flour, the Government would necessarily have to make provision for the removal of the ‘ duties upon wheat proportionate to the price at which wheat was’ being sold at the local towns in New Zealand. For instance, milling wheat of the best quality had that day sold in Christchurch at 4i 9d per bushel, which for this country was a high price, though it had been higher. , Mr T. Mackenzie: Five shillings m this province. . The Premier said it would obviously be necessary to have a sliding scale in proportion to the cost of wheat, and ho was persuaded that they required to go a step further. They would require to go beyond the wheat-raiser and the miller, to the baker, to ensure a fair price being charged to the bread-user, fie proposed to submit legislation dealing with these three aspects. He had a good deal of information on the subject, though not all which he required, H enable a complete proposal covering . the matter to be placed before Si* House. THE PEICE OF THE LOAF. Thev would require to have a minimum I price, so that when flour rose to -fill) IDs

or Affl per ton the Government could nay that unless wheat was ruling at an abnormally high price outside and inside, the duty should be removed entiicdy. They wouJd aLo require to have a minimum and a maximum price fixed in all parts of New Zealand for the 21 b and 41b loaf, and unless they carried out this principle from the wheat-grow-ot to tho bread-makor they would have a weakness in the chain. If the House in a haphazard way, but with the best of intentions, earned the proposal for the removal of the duty on flour, it would lie doing a very serious injustice) to the mass of the people in New Zealand. lie was getting the fuller information so ;us to know what the price of Urn loaf ought to be. and tho price at which millers could legitimately afford lo s-ell their flour at a fair profit, and aUo the fair price of wheat throughout the towns in New Zealand. This was Urn only safe course to adopt. That the people “were entitled to have bread as cheaply as possible was beyond all question/and he agreed with those who urged that this should be done. STATU FLOURMILLS. The Premier said ho would like to say something to tho.-o who made representations to tho Government that tho Slate should take over the flourmills. That would bo in practice a very grave mistake, if the Slate were to own the flourmills it would require to own them ail, own if it did not carry them all on. but, in addition, it would also be to own the land upon which the wheat was grown, >o as to control the supplies. Thus an enormous responsibility would be thrown upon the State, which already had great responsibility, Unless the State held the wheatproducing lands, there-would bo a danger of the wheat-growers holding off. knowing that the principal consumer was bound to buy, until semi-starvation forced the community to give the price demanded, ilo was persuaded that it would bo a much sounder principle to cm»ure that an excess price could not l>« charged for flour or bread, and if they did that it would do away with tho necessity of shouldering the enormous commercial responsibility of depending upon the weather, the land, and a thousand and one conditions which the individual farmer had lo deal with in the production of wheat. POTATOES INCLUDED.

,r Wo will also submit proposals for the regulation of tao price ox potatoes m the same measure/' continued the Premier, hearty “Hear, hears’ - ’ greeting this announcement. He went on to explain that his idea was that when potatoes reached the x>rlce of Jib 10s or dJU per ton, power should be given to the (Jover-uor-in-Council to remove the duly until they came below that price. (Hear, hear.) Potato growers in New Zealand were mostly small men, the average area held by them being under twenty acres, and the duty of Parliament was to see that they had an opportunity of obtaining a reasonable return for their labour. These wero the news ho held, and he honed both the House nud tho country would affirm them as ;lie best to deni with such an important aiatter. Happily for New Zealand, tho control of transnort was in the hands the people, so that legislation could bo produced with much greater ease to nopo with the trusts, which had done so much to interfere with the peaco and happiness of people in the Old World. .(Applause.) MEMBERS’ OPINIONS. Mr Buddo welcomed the Premier's proposal as practicable, and said that, as they were superior to his own suggestions. ho would not move the resolutions if which he had given notice. The milling trust had undoubtedly got the wheat narket in its hands, but the Premier's proposals would, he hoped/ deal with ihnt difficulty. Sir William Steward stated that he and - advocated automatic regulation of the dutv, and he believed the proposed Bill would be passed by a very large maiority. Mr Fisher said tho Premier's proposals contained an element of danger, inas. much as the power to make alterations rested with the Governbr-in-Council. He made-no reflection upon the present Ministry, but it was possible that there would some day he a Ministry in power interested in the products and prepared to do anything they pleased with on Order-in-Council, The proper course would be to have a Tariff Board to regulate the changes. He suggested that the hew policy was a complete reversal of the policy enunciated in July last, wffien a suggestion to tho same rffecfc by Mr Okey met with the reply that tho proposal would be too farreaching. The. Government would, by making these promises, get its tariff through, but although legislation might be brought down, there might not bo, time to pass it. Tho Premier should give the House an assurance on this point. It was about time tho millownens were given an indication that if they were going to raise tho price of flour unduly, the enemy would be let in upon them. A VOICE FOE ABOLITION.

Mr Hogg thanked the Premier for making what lie considered an exceedingly generous offer as a compromise, but he intended standing to his guns, and testing the Hons© upon the abolition of the flour duty. Vested interests had been very well upheld that evening, but he wished to bring arguments on behalf of a much larger body, nearly a million of individuals comprising the population of the colony. He had been deluged with communications asking him not to interfere with the farmer and the flonrmiller, but would it ruin the farmer if the duty was taken off wheat. 9 Canterbury farmers could grow wheat profitably to sell at 2s to 3s per bushel, and if they would speak honestly. this would be the testimony of every farmer in €E© colony. New Zealand's wheat yield averaged thirty bushels per acre, while Australia could only produce an average of ten bushels an acre. The worker was pleading to have the right to-purchase the necessities of life at a reasonable price, and every member who voted for the abolition of th© wheat duty had the masses at his back. The country was overloaded with flourmills. Mr T. Mackenzie declared that the previous speaker knew very well that much of the flour-milling capital had been written off. The price of flour now was infinitely lower in comparison to wheat than before the time of the flour trust. The Premier had found an excellent way out of the difficulty, and he knew the proposal would lie carried through. Mr Poole said he was quite willing to accept the Premier’s promises. The Premier said he would introduce legislation to put upon the statute-book, and he thought this was quite understood by every member. (Hear, hear.) As w> th© allegation that there had been a change of front, he pointed out that Mr Okey wanted power given to the Gov-ernor-in-Counc£l to remove the duties altogether from foodstuffs in case of a failure of crops, but he objected to an indiscriminate power being given to the Governor-in-Councfl. Mr Flatman, whil© admitting that the Premier's compromise was very fair, feared it would not benefit the farmer. "On this occasion I am to a certain extent a supporter of the Government, M declared Mr Massey, who assured the House that the Premier's policy was borrowed from the junior member of the Opposition, Mr Okey. He agreed with the Premier that if the duty on flour was taken off, wheat would have to be placed on the free list. . OTHER SPEAKERS. Mr Lauronson quoted authority to show that in England the taking off cf the duty on flour had cheapened the price of bread. He believed that taking the duty off would not affect the farming interests of this country at all. His idea was to let wheat in free and leave the‘duty on flour, if that would meet . the opposition to the proposal. Did they mean to say that the millers of Australia, with a population of five million people to supply, would alter the price because we had taken of! 20s per ton? Not feu* one instant It would not ul-

ter the price of flour in Australia Is per ton. , Mr Hornsby: What about California.*' Mr Laurenson ; That is a still more -.triking example. They had eighty million people to supply there, and did they mean to say that the millers of California would alter their price n«-e;au«- ** little country like New Zealand took ,'iin per loi< off flour ' ilie taii.g mei o. Lo be stated to show jts ridiculous nature. The removal of this duty meant a rebate of JcH per head on the people ol liiis country. Mr Okov hoped that the Premier havin'- com- forward with a statement Uiui ho°would bring down a Rill on this matter, Mr Hogg would throw the responsibility on the Premier, and withdraw bis opposition. Mr Hogg said that under ordinary circumstances he would have accepted the advice, but he had given the matter a great deal of ronside.ation. It was now t)ireo years that ho had moved in direction; since then the operations of the flour ring in this country had ccnfirmed the opinion he had always held that it was diametrically opponxi to the interests of the mass of the people. Ho moved, therefore, that after OcU her 31st next wheat-flour film II be admitted iree. They wore now only playing into Inc hands of rings that were amassing wealth at the expense of tho crowd wituout. He quoted a statement made by the Minister of Customs at Dunedin that within a pm'Ud of eight days, owing to an alarmist cablegram, flour had been increased A2 Kfe per ton. for which Mr Millar had held there was no jusufacaAll- Jennings thought Mr Hogg ehoo’c) he congratulated u;>ou having produced from the Premier a statement that he would bring down a Hill dealing w;U. Ihi.s question. If there was one thing in tho minds of the people at the present time it WHS the high price, they wore paying for thoir bread. Mr W. h laser asked what all this storm in a tea-pot was about ? i'ho removal of .ill duty per ton on flour would not lessen the price of btead .Mr T. Mackenzie agreed with the previous speaker. Ho combated the statement that the removal of the duty m Britain had cheapened the price ot bread. , , Tho debate was continued at great le.'.'t '|. c arious members, who voted with Hr”Hogg on ills Flour Duty Abolition proposal on a former occasion, explained that in view of tho Premier s statement, thev would rely on that announcement in 'the hope that it would meet their views on this question. tVJufstn therefore, in sympathy with Mr Hogg, and giving the member for Master! n everv credit for bringing this question before the House and country, they would vote for the retention of tho duty, though in doing so they desired to make their nosition thoroughly clear. THE AMENDMENT DEJECTED. THROWN OUT BY A LARGE MAJORITY. Mr Hogg's amendment was lost by 43 votes to 18. Following is tho division list;— For Amendment (18).-AAiold, Barber, Colvin, Davey, Ell, Fisher, Gray, Guinness, Hogan, Hogg. Izard, Laurenson. Malcolm. Poland, Boss, Scddon, bidcy. Tanner. ... t% n Against (43).—Aitken, AUfon, E. G. Allen, Bcnnet, Bollard, Buddo, Carroll, Dillon, Duncan, Field, Flatman Fowlds, A L. D. Fraser, W. Fraser. Graham, Groenslade, Hall, Hanan, Hardy, Heke, Herries, Hornsby, Houston, Jennings, Kidd, Lang, 'La wry. Lethbridge. Lewis, McGowan, T. Mackenzie, MeLachlnn, McNab, Macpherson, Major, Mander, Massey, Millar, Ngata, Okey, Poole, Reid, Rutherford, Stallworthy, Steward, Thorn-son, Ward. Witty. Wood. . Pairs. For —Wilford. Remington. Against—Barclay, Parafca.