ABOLITION OF DUTIES ON FOOD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2997, 23 August 1911, Page 38

ABOLITION OF DUTIES ON FOOD.

A BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT

WELLINGTON, August 17. In the of Representatives to-aay, Mr HOGG moved the second «»£ n « of the Abolition of Duties on Food Bill. He stated that he had for a number of years been endeavouring to get uie duty removed from flour. This was not the first time he had introduced the measure, but so far he had not succeeded in getting it through, though outside the Treasury Benches he had a majority ot the House. He would always strive to get rid of the duties on- the necessaries of life. This measure was'not confined to flour, but provided for a variety ot articles necessary for human comfort. He anticipated a considerable amount 01 opposition in endeavouring to get net or the duties on food. Unities ,of this description, in such a fertile country as New Zealand, were eminently unwise. Farmers did not object to the removal of the duties on 'tod. He had never met a genuine farmer who objected to the removal of the duty on flour. The wirepullers of the Farmers' Union were the persons responsible for-the duties. He ■was not referring to the industrial part of the union, but to those who were using the farmers for their own selfish purposes. The grain millers and the produce dealers were the ones who cried out against the removal of the duties, on grain, potatoes, and dairy produce. The farmers got no benefit out of the duties. New Zealand was in the hands of a commercial ring, which was doctoring up the food supplies of the community. Men who made food scarce committed a moral crime of the worst description. The average cost of living was about one-third more in New Zealand than in any part of Australia. Mr WILFORD said the bill was quite inadequate to remedy the trouble outlined, by Mr Hogg. He would support the bill with a view of pressing the attention of the Government, to the problem that arose from men getting constant increases of wages and yet deriving no benefit on account of the huge increases in tfie cost of their food supplies. This should be made the subject of inquiry oy a Royal Commission to get an expert opinion for a solution of the great problem. There was a lot of merit in the bill, but it was only a half remedial measure. Before a remedy was suggested it was necessary to diagnose the disease. He asked the Ministry to give a lead as to how and where the state of affairs which at present existed was going to be remedied. Mr LUKE advocated a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. He could not consistenly support the bill. Mr BUXTON said; he considered that if the bill were carried a lot of the farmers must go out of the producing business altogether. In his .opinion the country workers had not had such a good time as the town workers in connection with prices and tariffs. The passing of the measure would do a very great injury generally. Mr OKEY said he agreed with the bill, and would support it. He could say that the farmers did not require any duty on butter. With regard to the alleged butter ring, he denied its existence. _ Mr POOLE supported the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the food supply problem. As a protest against the price of butter and other things he would support the second reading of the bill. Mr M'LAREN said the time had" arrived -for a general overhauling of all matters pertaining to the supply of foods. He supported the bill. In the evening Mr STALLWORTHY said he opposed the abolition of the duty on flour, but he would support the second seeding of the bill, as he considered that in import duty on butter was not necessary. Mr J. C. THOMSON said that if the duty were taken off flour lie was sure the wheat industry would be endangered. If it. were not ruined it would be crippled. He advocated increased productivity of the land and the settlement of the land as being a solution of the difficulty of the food supply. If a Royal Commission were set up, he considered that the important matter of a reciprocal treaty ttith Australia should receive special attention. Mr WRIGHT supported the bill as a protest against the continual increase in the price of foodstuffs. Mr LAURENSON maintained that it was not' the cost of living that had increased. It was the standard that had increased. He did not want to be ituaunderstood. One of the factors of the increase was higher education. Twenty years ago a 41b loaf cost lOd, and many houses did not have bathrooms. For a number of years the country had experienced phenomenal prosperity, .and that increased land values, which was responsible for the present high cost of food. He pleaded for more consideration on the part of members to measures dealing with the food supply of the people of the country. Mr FISHER contended that the solution of the problem would not be found until a tariff" board was set up. He admitted that the standard of living had increased, but the cost had also increased materially. He would vote for the second reading of the bill. Mr RUSSELL said he would vote for the- second reading of the bill. He did not. anticipate that any practical result would follow, because legislation of this character would only emanate with effect from the Government of the day. He hoped that after the general election the Government would be compelled to recognise 'the necessity of doing something in the matter. The bill went in the fight direction.

The Hon. Mr MILLAR said the whole matter formed one of the greatest economic questions. He did not object to a commission, but the inevitable . reply would be that the matter was governed by the law of supply and demand. The only way to deal satisfactorily with the question was to limit the profit. it the bill became law to-morrow exactly the same state of affaire would be found to exist as existed now. The bill was not a solution of the question. The way butter was being sold for Is and retailed for Is 6d was nothing short of robbery. With regard to the cost of living, tiie Labour Department had sent out 750 books to working men asking them to furnish ft with the cost of living. Mr Hogg was labouring under a delusion if he thought the cost of living in Australia was very much less than the cost in New Zealand. The price of money entered into the difficult, and if the matter was to be ' thoroughly investigated the price of money would have to be considered too. By tightening up,, the cost of money the cost of everything eke tightened. The Government was expected to deal with this huge matter in a week or two. From the point of view of the actual cost of living, the matter had be- (. cme she must serious one of the day. The landowner was reaping the benefit of the piling up of the cost of living. This applied more to land values in the cities than' in the country. He knew more about the former than the latter. If the duty were taken off flour New Zealand would be made the dumping-ground for wheat. He was not going to tax one section of the community and protect another. There was only one way to keep down the cost of living —a tariff would not do it. One advantage of a protective tariff that it encouraged the employment of New Zealand labour. He did not think the tariff would ever have any permanent effect on the cost of living. He could not see his way clear to support the bill. Mr HQGAN said the policy of the present party had been to reduce or abolish altogether the duties on the food of thi people. He vouLd go further than the provisions of the bill and reduce the duty on some other foodstuffs. _ State competition was the only way in his opinion to regulate prioee. The Hon. T. MACKENZIE said he did not desire to see the consumers pay an undue price for food. It had been contended that if a duty was not placed on wheat the same, quantity would not be grown. The farmers were "quite prepared to have the duties taken off their products if other duties were taken off. The farmers paid duty on almost everything .they used. He denied the assertion that flour would be cheaper if the duty were removed from wheat. With reference to trusts, he said an endeavour should be made to meet them and cripple their influences. Some years ago flour-milling was far from being a profitable investment, and some millers went bankrupt, while others had amalgamated. If Australia would co-operate and extend the concessions which New Zealand APas prepared to grant they could work on a profitable basis, but Australia would not do that. He was not arguing entirely on a protective basis. They were not going to allow importation into the country to the detriment of the producers here. Protective tariffs were to keep the people producing on their own lands. He could say that if an undue price was likely to be charged the consumer in this country the matter should receive the consideration of the House, but if the tariff had had the effect of steadying prices it had achieved its object. Mr ELL said he thought it would be an excellent thing if the municipalities were given power to establish flonrmills. The establishment of bakeries might be extended to them too, and the sal© of fish should be dealt with in a similar manner. The Government had done a great deal in the direction of lemitting the duties on foodstuffs. This country practically had now a free breakfast table. He would like to see the Government set up a small commission to investigate the whole matter. Mr JENNINGS moved the adjournment of the debate, and the motion was carried. The Housa rose at 11.46 p.m.