WHEAT IMPORTATIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 July 1932, Page 11

WHEAT IMPORTATIONS

DEFENCE BY MINISTER.

COMMERCIAL MEN'S ATTACK.

The charge that in its wheat importation scheme the Government is more concerned to protect the interests ot wheat speculators than to promote cheap bread and cheap gram for the poultry and pig industries js made by iho Auckland Chamber of Commerce in replying to a letter from the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. R. Masters. In his communication, which was received at a meeting of the chamber s council on Thursday, the Minister stated that the Wheat Marketing Agency Company, Limited, commonly known as the Wheat Marketing Board, would see that all mills -received a fair allocation of wheat, having regard to the purchases of local wheat already made, and to all other circumstances, lhe board's terms of sale and its operations generally would be subject to official supervision. The board itself would make no profit, and. no private advantage would arise from the fact that it was the sole importer. With regard to the proposed differential prices for imported, wheat, the Minister stated that the prices of wheat and flour naturally varied according to distance froan the source of supply in the 'South Island, and .there was nothino’ unusual in such a state of aflaus. Prices in tho South Island were below import parity, based on flour, at least to the extent of the cost of coastal transport. . “To remove summarily and without adequate notice the duty on wheat and flour, as is apparently suggested by you, would be to ignore the fact that growers, millers and merchants throughout the Dominion lipid stocks of wheat bought at prices which have been determined under the tariff rates existing,” the letter continued. “While it is necessary that importation should be effected from seasonal supplies now available in in Australia, it is not to be assumed that stocks of New Zealand wheat are by any means exhausted. Some mills actually hold their full requirements until the next New Zealand harvest should be available in March, 1933.” Th© Minister added that he noted the Chamber’s statement that the poultry industry could be made highly profitable if wheat were available at reasonable prices. He pointed out that the poultry industry had considerable tariff protection and the importation of certain egg products was definitely prohibited. The president, Mi’. A. M. Seaman, submitted a draft of a reply to the Minister’s letter. The draft, which was unanimously approved for transmission, said that the Minister’s explanation did not dispose of, but in fact admitted, tho charge that the Government was in effect aiding and abetting a monopoly on the part of the Wheat Marketing Agency Company, which would largelv determine local prices. The letter declared that differential duties as between ports were unusual and wrong in principle and called for an emphatic protest. With regard to “reasonable- notice” of changes ill duties, the Government itself appeared to have deviated from this principle. “Had I’easonablo notice of tho Government’s intention to allow 850,000 bushels of wheat to be imported at a reduced rate of duty been given, protection of wheat speculators would not have been necessary and prices as a result would have been lower,” stated the letter. .