Page 4 Advertisements Column 2

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1930, Page 4

f PROTECTING NEW ZEALAND’S BREAD AND BUTTER. If those opposing the wheat and flour duties were sincere they would also aim at the removal of import duties on butter. New Zealand butter is .protected by the following duties: 2d a pound on Australian butter, 20 per cent, on butter from other British countries, and 40 per cent, on foreign butter. It is not here suggested that these duties: are not warranted. The vastly important butter industry deserves every possible safeguard. On the other hand, New Zealand wheat and flour have even greater'need for protection. Most locally grojyn foodstuffs, in fact, are protected froni;-foreign competition, yet seemingly because wheatgrowing is practically confined to the South Island, it has become'the object of attack of certain North Island organisations. The protection afforded the New Zealand wheat and flour industries is through a sliding scale of duties which protect both the local producer and the consumer. The extent of this protection is not nearly so great as the public arc sometimes led to believe. the year 1928, the average rate of duty paid on flour coming to New Zealand was £2 Ils 2d per ton. In 1929 the;average rate was £2 10s 4d per ton. The local price being £IG 15s per ton means that the average duty has been approximately only 15 per cent. This is a comparatively low rate which is more than justified by the national and Economic importance of the industry which is protected. After all, the price of bread in New Zealand is not affected to any appreciable extent by the wheat and flour duties. Authentic figures Recently published throughout the Dominion showed that bread' ; in New Zealand costs very slightly more than bread in Australia, and considerably less than the prices ruling in Canada and the United States. Incidentally, cheap wheat isj availably in all three countries mentioned. — (Published by arrangement.) . .