PROTECTION OF WHEAT

Taranaki Daily News, 23 October 1930, Page 11

PROTECTION OF WHEAT

DOMINION CHAMBERS’ VIEWS MOTION TO REDUCE THE DUTY. OBJECTION TO SLIDING SCALE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. , The Hermitage, Oct. 22. The merit of the protection of the wheat industry in New Zealand was. debated at the conference of Associated Chambers of Commerce to-day, when the following remit was moved by Mr. A. G. Lunn (Auckland): That there should be no extension of the existing agreements regarding wheat and flour and that the duty on British Empire wheat and flour /should be substantially revised downwards and the sliding scale abolished. “Although the mover of the remit,” said Mr. Lunn, “I assure the conference, particularly southern delegates, I have no intention of suggesting that wheat duties should be entirely, abolished.” He said it had been laid down that it was essential to impose this form of duty in order that the Dominion might secure the growing of wheat and thus be free' from interruption of the main, food supply in time of war, and further, that it would tend to increase the areas sown in wheat. A close study of the economics of wheat-growing had made 1 the Auckland chamber realise and point out to the Government that although temporarily the sliding scale might increase the area for wheat-growing it would ultimately, by creating a surplus of wheat, reduce those areas. . Mr. Lunn said it had to be realised that as the world’s parity in wheat had been reduced to approximately 3s a bushel it was impossible for the Dominion to stand aloof and insist on prepayment being regulated by a sliding scale of wheat-duties round about 6s 9d a bushel. It had to be realised, in view of the fall of prices for the Dominion’s primary products, that the sliding scale was uneconomic in the extreme.

Mr. Lunn described wheat-growing under the present conditions as a ‘‘robber industry,” in that without being conducted with such economy that the Dominion could meet world conditions it was made to depend on charging an unduly heavy amount to other producers in the country, who had to face world conditions. PLEA FOR WHEAT-GROWERS. Mr. b. A. Hewlett (Christchurch) said no other industry had. been so harassed during the last 16 years as the wheat industry. He surveyed the price increases of all commodities during the war and said that while other people received for ,a. reward a price ha-td on the world value, the. product of the wheat-grower was commandeered at a relatively low rate. The farmer was a loser every time in a situation that meant “heads I win tails you lose.”

So far as. the consumer was concerned the Wheat Institute wavs set up to improve the industry and gain the best all-round results. ' Hybridisation on a large scale had been carried out with a view to selecting three or four strains that would make good bread and give a good yield to the grower. The aim of the .Wheat Institute .was to Increase the yield, at the same time, raising the quality of the loaf. Plant research institutes had been experimenting with a view to killing some,of.the most dangerous diseases, in wheat which took, a heavy toll .annually. Under the' shelter of the standing scale, of duties the wheat-growers, through the Wheat Institute and other, research stations,. were puttinc- their ■ house in order with, a view to putting the wheat industry in a sound economic position, giving a. fair return to '.the grower and giving the consumer a loaf at a reasonable price. He felt confident, however, that to interfere before this had been accomplished would be fatal. Further it was moot unjust.’ Why attempt to wreck one of the greatest industries of the Dominion, consisting of over a million acres of wheat-growing land and capital of anything between forty and fifty millions sterling! Many, were making no effort at all. T Mr. J. Ireland (Palmerston North) said the North Island, did not fully realise the position. The eliding scalp was put in operation, to protect the grower, also the consumer, against having to pay exorbitant prices. , ■/ Mr. Norton Francis (Christchurch), as proxy for Oamaru, said the matter had been fully gone into by a Parliamentary committee which found that the industry in New Zealand should be self-supporting and should be protected. Mr. H. T. Merritt (Auckland) said he had'not heard a single argument why the high taxation of the public for tho protection of the wheat-grower should be continued.. The same arguments could be advanced for every other industry. T'lje position was unfair and the present was not the time for uneconomic expenditure. After a further lengthy debate the remit was lost by 15 votes to 29.

IMPORTATIONS. OF WHEAT. “GROWERS’ POSITION UNSTABLE.” Christchurch, Last Night. Asking why the Dominion, having crown a sufficiency of wheat for its own use, should still import large quantities, Mr. A. W. Mulholland, chairman of the New Zealand Wheat-growers’ Co-op-erative Association, said at the annual meeting to-day that one reason was that the North Island mills, particularly Auckland, imported Australian or Canadian wheat or flour in preference to New Zealand high protein wheats. This was having a serious effect on sales of these varieties and must result in the decreased growing of them, so that if the millers were forced to rely on, local wheats a shortage of the high protein varieties would be apparent.

Mr. Mulholland emphasised the need for continued protection in favour of the wheat-growers. The removal of the duties on wheat and flour would represent practically no saving to the consumer, while the indirect loss which he would suffer, through the wiping out of this important industry would more than counter-balance ,his savings. Despite the favourable report which the. Parliamentary committee brought down last year, propaganda against the wheat duties in the North Island papers had been most persistent. He said the tendency undoubtedly would be to increase the acreage if the local price remained at or near the present figure, but if this resulted in a large local surplus the prices obtained would be so low as to be ruinous, resulting in many bankruptcies. He warned the growers that the local position as far as 1932 was concerned was very unstable.