PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 2, 18 August 1911, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, August 17. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Sir Robert Stout’s report on tho Cook Islands was laid on the table, and it was decided to take the discussion on Thursday next. Mr Hogg moved the Abolition of !hdics on Food Bill. Ho said he had for several years been endeavouring to have tho duty removed from flour, and would always strive to get rid of tho duties on the necessaries of life. The present Bill was not confined to flour, but provided for a variety of articles necessary for human comfort. The man who made food scarce committed a moral crime of the worst description.

Mr Wilford advocated a Royal Commission to get an expert opinion on the great problem of food supply. Ho supported the Bill. Mr Luke favoured a commission, but could not support that Bill.

Mr Buxton said if tho Bill was car- * riod a lot of farmers must go out of tho producing business altogether. Mr O'key agreed witli the Bill. Fanners did not, lie said, require a duty on butter. He denied the existence of a butter ring. Messrs Poole and McLaren supported tho Bill, the debate on which was interrupted by the dinner adjournment.

The House resumed the discussion on the Abolition of Duties on Foods Bill at 7.30 p.m. Mr Stallworthy opposed the abolition of duty on flour, but would support the second reading of the Bill, as ho considered the import duty on butter was not necessary.

Mr J. C. Thompson said that if the duty were taken off flour he was sure the wheat industry would be endangered. If it were not ruined, it would bo crippled. He advocated increased productivity of land and the settlement of the land as being the solution of the difficulty of food supply. If a Royal Commission were set up he considered that the important matter of reciprocal treaty with Australia should receive special attention. Mr Wright supported the Bill as a protest against the continual increase in the price of foodstuffs.

Mr Lauren,son maintained that it was not the cost of living ‘■hat had increased. It was the standard that had increased. One of the factors of the increase was higher, education. For a number of years the country had experienced phenomenal prosperity, and that increased land values, which was responsible for the present higher cost of food. Ho 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 bo found until a tariff board were set up. He admitted that the standard of living had increased materially. Mr. RussoU said anticipate any practical results would follow the second reading because legislation of tins kind would only emanate with effect from the Government of tho day. Ho hoped that, after the general election - the Government would bo compelled to recognise the necessity of doing something in the matter. The Bill went in tho right, direction.

The Hon. James Millar said the whole matter formed, one of the greatest economic questions. The only way to deal satisfactorily with the question was to limit pfofit. If tho Pill became law to-morrow, exactly tho same state of affairs would .•..ho found to exist under the Bill as existed now. Tho Bill was not a solution of the question.' The way butter was being sold for one shilling and retailed for one shilling and sixpence was nothing short of robbery. The price of money entered into the difficulty, and if the matter was to be thoroughly investigated, the price of money would have to be considered l. )0. By tightening up the cost of money the cost of everything else tightened. The Government was expected to deal with this huge matter in a week or two. From the point of view of tho actual cost of living, the matter had become the most serious one of the day, and the land owner was reaping the benefit of the piling up of the cost of living. This applied more to land values in cities than in tho country. If the duty wore taken off flour, Now Zealand would be made tho dumping ground for Australian wheat. He was not going to tax one section of the community and protect another. Ho did not think the tariff would ever have any permanent effect on tho cost of living. He could not see his way clear to support the Bill. Mr Hogan contended that State competition was tho only way to regulate the prices. The Hon. T. Mackenzie denied tho assertion that flour would bo cheaper if the duty were removed from wheat. With reference to trusts, an endeavour should be made to meet them and cripple their influence. If Australia

would co-operate and extend the concessions New Zealand was prepared to grant, they would work on a profitable basis, but Australia would not do that. They wore not going to allow importation into the country to the detriment of the producers hero. Protective tariffs were to keep people producing on their own lands.

Mr Ell favoured the municipalities having tire power to establish flour mills and bakeries.

The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 11.-10.