WHEAT DUTY CONTROVERSY

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1929, Page 11

WHEAT DUTY CONTROVERSY

IS THERE AN UNDERSTANDING?

WARM DISCUSSION IN HOUSE.

(By Wire.—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night,

Declaring that an understanding had been arrived at by the Government in regard to the wheat question, Air., D. Jones stated in the House to-night that there was a member of the “1928 Committee” in the Cabinet and that was no good to the farmers. Mr. Jones said the understanding was that there was going to be a reduction in the wheat duties, irrespective of the select committee which was to be set up to inquire into the subject. The Post-master-General had already told the House that an understanding had been arrived at. He had said: “I am going to vote for a reduction in the wheat duties.” That, said Mr. Jones, was a Ministerial statement.

The Postmaster-General (the Hon; J. B. Donald): I was pledged to it.

Mr. Jones: If the Government does not help the Postmaster-General out he must hand in his resignation. You see the position the Government is in? A very prominent member of the House has been moving around endeavouring to get farmers to agree to a certain reduction. I ask the Postmaster-General has he any right to decide this question? I understand ho is interested in wheat and that he is a trader in wheat. Mr. Jones declared the 1928 Committee was behind the movement to reduce the duties. Mr. A. M. Samuel: It is a commercial movement.

Mr. Jones: They have got ono of their supporters in the Cabinet and that is what I object to as a farmer. The Minister of Lands said the Government was going to set up a committee and abide by its decision. So would I if I were allowed to nominate tho personnel.

Mr. Jones declared tho Government ■was making a raid on the farmers, and he suggested there was something more than flour to be considered. A certain bakery in Auckland was asking for £5009 in 10 per cent, preference shares and its net profit last year was £8437. Was the Postinaster-General taking any action in regard to' that? “If the Postmaster-General is going into the question,” said Mr. Jones, “let him bring before the Government the question of millens’ or bakers’ profits and investigate that. I want to say that is the position so far as the farmer is concerned, and I suggest the Government should bring down its policy and we will know where it stands.”

FARMERS AGAINST PROTECTION.

DIVIDED VIEWS EXPRESSED.

By Telegraph—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night.

The Farmers’ Union conference was engaged all to-day discussing the question of a sliding seale of wheat duties for growers or whether it should be abolished, also the position of substituting a subsidy. Numerous delegates objected to the matter being left to a committee of the House or being made a political matter. Opinion on every side was very divided. South Island delegates made the point that the wheat-growers were small farmers and that there could be no suggestion of exploiting tlm public. . It was also stressed that wheat-growing employed a great amount of labour. If wheat-growing became financially impossible Canterbury would revert to largo areas and sheep to the detriment of the Dominion. .

Mr. AV. J. Polson stressed the question as a national one, and the danger of admitting the principle of subsidies on wheat to the Dominion. If they would agree to give the wheat-growers a reasonablo measure of protection in the meantime the wheat-growers should so organise their industry that they might in time be able to hold their own with outside competition. He was of opinion that the wheat-growers were at present getting too much in the way of protection, which made the price of the commodities of wheat too dear for other countries which needed them. It would be to the benefit of the country.if a tribunal of experienced men should decide what were* the essential industries of the Dominion. A Parliamentary committee would get them nowhere. After further discussion a motion, “That this conference affirms the principle of the gradual abolition of all protective duties,” was’ ■<“ carried unanijnonsly.