PRICE OF THE LOAF.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 1926, Page 14

PRICE OF THE LOAF.

PROSPECT OF PENNY RISE. DUTY ON IMPORTED WHEAT. PROTEST FROM NORTH TARANAKI. TARIFF NO LONGER NEEDED. The impending rise of one penny a loaf in the price of bread, which, it is anticipated, will probably take place in the near future if the wheat farmers of New Zealand are successful in obtaining a high protective tariff o n imported wheat, was the subject of a special address delivered before a meeting of the North Taranaki branch of the Farmers' Union yesterday by the president of the. Taranaki Chamber of Commerce (Mr. Gordon Fraser). Mr. Fraser explained hew seriously the proposed action would affect the poultry farmers and general public throughout the Dominion to the benefit of the Canterbury farmers, and it was decided to forward a strong protest to the Dominion executive against tlie imposition of the duty.

A conference was subsequently held ' between representatives of the union branch and tlie Taranaki Chamber of i Commerce, when it was decided to tele- I graph to the Minister for Agriculture ' (the Hon. O. J. Ilawkcn) protesting I against the tariff on the grounds that i it . was a war measure, that it had not fulfilled its purpose of increasing production —which, on the other hand, had decreased—and that protection was now neither necessary nor desirable. The newspapers had been flooded with reports and discussions on the question, said Mr. Fraser, at the meeting of the Farmers' Union. Briefly, the proposal to protect the Canterbury farmers would : increase the price of bread a further Id • a loaf, and as it was already carrying I Id a loaf in Customs duty, the protec- j tion of wheat really meant an increase i of 2d in the price. It was time the . whole question was looked into, for was tlie industry in New Zealand worth while if it required all this protection? | Mr. Fraser traversed the history of the wheat importation duty, which, he said, was a war measure. A committee with I Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Eltham) as chair- i man had gone into the matter during ■ the war years, and it was decided to sec * whether sufficient wheat could be grown ' in New Zealand to meet the needs of I the population. New Zealand required. eight million bushels of wheat annually, i The protection duties were £3 a ton on flour, 2s per lOOlbs. on wheat, and £3 a ton on bran and pollard.

PRODUC TION DECREASING. In spite of the protection given to New Zealand growers,. tip; production in the Dominion had steadily decreased. Under the war regulations, the Minister had power to sti pend or alter the duties, or prohibit the importation altogether. Now the growers were trying to have this power resuscitated. How 'the crops had decreased since lE9B could be seen from the following table of production: 1898-99. 13,073,410 bushels: 1922-23, 10,565,275 bushels: 1924-25, 5,447,758 bushels; 1925-26. four million bushels. Australian milling wheat cost Gs 4ld a bushel with Is extra for freight, and Australian flour (£l3 5s a ton f.o.b. New Zealand wheat cost 6s 5d a bushel, and flour £lB a ton. Protected by the tariff, growers were getting along all right, but in January last the wheat market jumped. The growers repudiated their old agreement, thinking they could do better in the open market, but. since then they had found that they were worse off. Production costs in Australia were much less, so that even with the duty Australian flour could still profitably be brought to New Zealand. Even with this protective tariff the growers found that they could not compete with Australia, and now they wanted a compromise of 7s 3d a bushel f.o.b. The millers said that wifji the increased price of wheat they must raise their flour £2 10s a ton, which meant Id a loaf. Oifal meanwhile was wanted in New Zealand, but could not bo obtained.

“AN ABSURD DECISION.’' From the public point of view, said Mr. Fraser, wheat should be permitted to enter the Dominion duty free. Au inquiry had been made into the whole question, but no consumers were represented, and the growers had made an absurd decision. “Millers’ generous offer” was the heading that a report of their decision had received in a well-known city paper, and at first sight it seemed to be a clever one. It meant that New Zealand wheat should be protected at a high price until it was all disposed of, when the duty should be dropped and the millers given Australian wheat to mill. It was suggested that flour might be allowed in free, but not pollard nor bran. Surely if flour was allowed in theiGovernment should sec that pollard and bran were allowed in also. One ' was as essential as the other. As it | was, Australian bran cost £6 a ton I and pollard £8 a ton, plus £2 freight, I - etc. New Zealand bran cost £7 a ton ami pollard £9, plus £1 freight, etc.' Now Zealand was subject to 21 per cent, discount, and the other was net. And New Zealand was short of bran and gmllard. It required 50,000 tons of offal . annually, and had only 30,01 V tons. available. “After all the bonus, Canterbury pro-1 duces only half a crop,” said Mr. Fraser, i There was just enough wheat to feed the South Island. Surely it was an eco- i mimic waste to send wheat up to the North Island until all the supply was ( exhausted, and then import wheat into both islands The whole thing was political, and backed by tlie millers. If. they constituted a trust, then let the' Government take off the duty. If the wheat-growers could not live in compc- : ti'.ion with the outside world, they should turn to something else. The public were being asked to pay ' a bread tax of Id. As it was. bread in j Loudon cost 9Jd, and in Wellington Is ; 2d. It would be Is 3d if the new '■ scheme came into opera!ion, and yeti New Zealand was a wheat producing country and England an importing one. The people ought to get together and let Mr. Ilawkcn know that it was not a good scheme. Jfl S. Vickers: He already knows it. In reply to a question, Mr. Fraser i ■ said that his information was that this prohibition of wheat importation would assuredly take place unless something were done. POULTRY MEN BEING STARVED. Mr. Vickers considered that every fumr :u the North Island would endorse the opiamn expressed by Mr.

While the people, of New Zealand were spoon feeding the Canterbury wheat-growers, they were at the sama lime starving the poultry men of the North Island. It was accepted as a basic principle that the Customs should be used for the purpose of revenue, and not as a means of giving protection. The offal produced from the wheat was as important to dairy farmers and poultry I men as the flour was to the rest of (New Zealand. It was high time that this pampering of the Canterbury farmers should be stopped, Land that would grow, wheat in Canterbury could just as well be used for dairying purposes if wheat-growing was not found to be 1 profitable, and he was firmly of the opinion that the wheat duty should be removed. Mr. J. A. Kurth considered that the South Island branch of the Farmers’ Union was always pitted against, the North, and seemed to be the stronger.. The j South Island members always seemed j. to get the best of the argument, and ■he thought the only solution, was the 1 splitting up of the Farmers’ Union into two different North and South Island unions. Mr. Fraser slated that had it not been for the change in tlie Minister for Agriculture, he would not have bothered to make a move in the matter. But now that the North Island had a sympathetic man like Mr. Hawken, he ' thought that something might be done. , On the motion of Mr. Vickers it ' was decided to forward to the Dominion I executive ' of the Farmers’ Union a ■ strong • protest against the. imposition iof duty on wheat imported from Australia, and- in addition, Messrs. A. S. Hicks, S. Vickers and 0. J. Harris were appointed representatives of the union branch to confer with representatives of the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce in the afternoon and formulate a definite scheme of action. At the conference held in the afternoon between representatives of the Farmers’ Union and the Chamber of Commerce, the question was fully discussed on lines similar to those of the morning meeting, and it was unanimously decided to telegraph to the Minister for Agriculture emphatically protesting against the imposition of the new tariff on the grounds that it had been a war-time measure, had not achieved the desired end of increasing production, and was now neither justified nor required.