PROTECTION OF FLOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1927, Page 9

PROTECTION OF FLOUR

ATTITUDE OF THE PREMIER TARANAKI CHAMBER S VIEWS. PROTEST AT PROMISED INCREASE. “It looks as if the slogan ‘Coats off with Coates’ is not an invitation to fight, but an invitation to go out and cool off when pressing problems arise,” said Mr. Gordon Fraser at the meeting of the council of the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce last night, when a protest was made at any further increase in the duty on flour or wheaten products. Mr. Coates had gone over the heads of his Acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. Downie Stewart) and the Minister of Agriculture. He had promised an extra £1 duty on wheat. This involved £170,000, calculated •on 8,4X10,000 bushels, and with bakers’ profits, etc., added, it would mean an extra tax of close on £250,090, above what was being taken out of the people’s pockets. A voice: Shame! Mr. Fraser said the problem that had to be faced was why it took so much more to make flour in New Zealand than in Australia. The public of New Zealand had not yet been aroused, and if something were not done before Parliament met, the subject would be treated in an apathetic way. They must hammer away and keep on hammering. Mr. Coates had said he would not make it a party matter, but he had given Australia six months’ notice of intention to increase, and this showed he did not intend to leave it to a free vote. There was a strong feeling against the duty in Taranaki, where the dairy producers were unprotected. They had received no protection and had to sell in the markets of the world. The Government had given them nothing— Mr. P. E. Stainton: It gave them dairy control. . Mr. Fraser: That is about all it did give them. If the Government thought to catch Canterbury votes they were only a very smgll proportion of the total votes —and there were all those in the North Island. EFFECT ON BREAD PRICES. Forty-eight bushels of wheat made one ton of flour, said Mr. Fraser, The duty on wheat was 2s a cental, which for 48 bushels meant a duty of £3,corresponding to the duty on a ton of flour. The advocates of protection stressed the contention that the manufactured article should enjoy more protection than the raw material. But they overlooked the fact that while it was quite true that it took 48 bushels of wheat to produce a ton of flour, in the process of manufacture there was also produced between 600 and 8001bs of offal, on which there was a protective duty of £2 10s, temporarily reduced to £1 a ton by Order-in-Council. There was a very strong agitation in the South to reimpose the full amount. In reply to a question, Mr. Fraser said it meant an addition of a little over one penny bread tax. Mr. T. C. List: We pay 50 per cent, more for our bread here than in London. Mr. Fraser: And 50 per cent, more than in Sydney. Mr. J. Brodie: If it gets higher the people will protest. Mr. Fraser said they did not realise it. It had been getting higher all the time. Mr. J. McNeill considered the trouble was that there were too many mills in New Zealand. Instead of working 24 hours a day they were working about eight hours. Mr. Fraser pointed out that while It was contended the remedy locally wae to put another £1 duty on, in reality it was “only having a brandy instead of going to the hospital” (laughter). The Christchurch Press published a letter from Mr. David Jones, and it showed that he had turned round, said Mr. Fraser, who agreed with Mr. W. J-. Penn that the best thing would be to drop the whole thing and let the local people find their own level. On the motion of Mr. Stainton, seconded by Mr. McNeill, it was decided to send the following resolution to the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture: “That this chamber enters an emphatic protest against any further increase in the duty on flour or wheaten products.”