THE PRICE OF FLOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 61, 9 November 1907, Page 2

THE PRICE OF FLOUR.

THE GOVERNMENT BILL. » Per Press Association. Wellington, Thursday. A discussion arose in the House of Representatives this evening on the motion to go into committee on the Flour mid Other Products Monopoly Prevention Bill. The Premier said a feeling had been prevalent in the country that the duty ' should be taken oil' wheat and Hour as a 1 means of reducing the price of bread. An examination of this suggestion, how- ; ever, would show that such a course >vas ' 11 jt altogether desirable, if the duty 1 had been entirely removed from wheat, • it would probably mean that farmers would cease growing it, and consequent- • ly the country would be at the mercy * of outside countries. As it was, the i country did not grow much excess wheat. I lie had thought a sliding scale could i luve been introduced to deal with any - lm iiopoly or combination to keep up the - price of wheat and flour, but recent happenings in the world's markets had i, shown that this could not fic accom--5 plisted. However, under this Bill an . Ai Miration Court would be set up to deal with wheat and flour when they 3 loathed abnormally high prices. The Hill also provided for the Arbitration Corn dealing with any monopoly or j combination tliat might seek to raise B the price of potatoes. He added that e si'ice the Bill had been returned from the Commerce Committee provision had been I made for a representative of agricultural 7 and pastoral societies being a member of Or Arbitration Court, and with this ' provision lie was in accord. ™ Mr. Hogg contended that a combini--7 tion hiul been in existence since 1003 to II limit the output of ilour and keep up '* its price, and it was higli time legiehi- '' tion was introduced to deal with the s trust. The Bill before the House was ii on similar lines to the Canadian meaa sure. He was not going to find fault with the Bill, but cordially welcomed it. d He contended that wheat in New Zea- !- land was only one penny or twopence " on the average Mglier Mian in Australia, yet Hour in New Zealand was from £1 to 30s per ton higher. Consequently the farmer was not benefiting, but in company with other consumers was being penalised by the high rate at which bread was sold. He did not lay all the blame on bakers, as the thrifty housewife could always bate Bread and often r produce a better and more wholesome t - article; but the housewife could not protect herself from the millers' ring. He e intended to support the Bill, and hoped tiie duty would be soon removed from j flour, not temporarily but permanently. Mr. Massey, replying fo Mr. Hogg, contended that private individuals could , always grow wheat cheaper than the J State could. As the result of the agitation for the removal of the flour duty, j the area of wheat grown had been gradually reduced, as farmers were afraid that in time of a shortage they would * liave to compete with better-favored , countries in legard to wheat-growing. He added that if the total of wheat ' grown became less than was required 3 by the consumers of the Dominion, then J it was "good-bye to the cheap loaf!" Referring to Mr. Hogg's contention that Australian wheat and flour should bo 1 allowed to come in duty free, he re- " minded the House that the duty imposed 3 by the Commonwealth on New Zealand ' ilour was £2 10s per ton. He favored j the proposal to place a representative from the country on the Arbitration Board. He added that he did not think 5 it was necessary to bring potatoes under ' this Bill. He did not think the Bill ,was ! perfect, still he intended to support it. Mr. T. Mackenzie referred in detail ! to Mr. Hogg's statements, and combatted 1 his remarks as to the high price of ilour J being due to the millers' trust. " Mr. Hogan pointed out that earlier in ! the session the Premier lad promised to include in his Bill a provision to J allow Qf municipalities establishing nnlU, J also to remove the duty by means of a J sliding scale; but he had apparently given way on both these points. He 1 contended that the farmer had protection over Australian farmers by reason ' of the freight and the fact that, whilst the average yield per acre in Australia was only ten bushels, the yield in New ' Zealand was thirty bushels. 1 Mr. Barclay urged that the State ' should enter into the wheat-growing and 1 Hour-milling industries. Mr. Reid contended that the State ; could not compete with private enterprise in the wheat and flour industries. Mr. Jill, replying to Mr. T. Mackenzie, 1 said the reason why the area of wheat was reduced was because farmers found [ it more profitable to fatten sheep and ( la in l« and produce butter. He commended the Government for an honest oilort to defeat the monopoly. Ur. I hitman said he would support the measure. It was experimental, and if .successful could be extended in other directions. The Premier, in reply, said lie believed the measure worthy of a trial. The Bill was set down for committal' on Friib'; 1 . ] • - •