DUTIES ON WHEAT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18545, 3 November 1934, Page 5

DUTIES ON WHEAT

ALTERATIONS OPPOSED BUSINESS MEN’S DEBATE NORTH VERSUS SOUTH (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, this day. After a long discussion on the sliding scale of wheat, duties at the annual conierence of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, a proposal to abolish the duties was rejected. The remit was submitted by the Auck land chamber as follows: —“That this conference urges on the Government the desirability of putting into force the recommendation of the Tariff Commission in favor of the replacement of the sliding scale of duties on wheat and flour by reduced duties on a specific basis.” ‘ South Island delegates strongly opposed the remit, saying that a reduction ni the duties would mean a calamity for the industry. Mr. A. G. Lunn, in moving the remit, said that there was a strong feeling of discontent in a large part 6i the North Island at the -continuance of the duties. He argued.- that an injustice to the whole community should not be continued for the benefit of a small section. The citizens of New Zealand had paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the higher prices gained by the wheat growers, while some of the surplus wheat had been sold overseas at less than half the price at which other wheat was sold in New Zealand. The pig and poultry industries, meanwhile, said Mr. Lunn, had been particularly hit by the wheat duties. DANGER OF ALTERATION Mr. Gainor Jackson, of Auckland, seconding the remit, said that the wheat grower was afforded protection, not only ~y duties, but by the transit charges, '[’lie total effective protection was bs 6;)d a bushel. This was not fully effective, because of over production within the industry. Mr, C. H. Hewlett said that if wheat growing was to cease, they would have to convert 250,000 acres from wheat growing to the production of butterfat, wool, and meat, and put them on an already glutted British market. If the Auckland proposal was put into effect, it would at once create unemployment, and ultimately reduce the prices of North Island mutton, lamb, wool, and butter.

Mr. W. Machi.i (Christchurch) disputed Mr. Jackson’s estimate of the total protection of wheat; 6s 6i,d was, he said, and absurd figure. The actual duty protection was ll|d a bushel. He denied that the price of bread and wheat products in New Zealand was high. Mr. R. K. Ireland said the remit, if carried into effect, would increase the price of wheat. The industry had been able to supply 70,C00 tons of bran and pollard to the pig and poultry industries at rates competitive with the world’s uarkets.

Mr. A. F. Wright suggested that the agitation against the duties came from Auckland trading interests, and not from the pig and poultry industries. The remit was lost cm the voices.