DUTIES ON WHEAT

Taranaki Daily News, 28 July 1932, Page 7

DUTIES ON WHEAT

RECENT AUSTRALIAN - PURCHASE.

OPINIONS OF BUSINESS MEN.

That a subsidy was preferable to a tariff in fostering wheat production in the Dominion was the view expressed at th© meeting‘of th©'council of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday night. * The following report upon, th© sub-., ject of wheat, duties was submitted by the joint Exporters’ and Importers’. Committees:—

“The Auckland Chamber of Commerce has been taking up with the Minister of Industries and Commerce the question of importation of 850,000 bushels of wheat from Australia, and has stressed:— ('

(1) Their objections to the exclusive privileges by way of special remissions of duty accorded to the Wheat Marketing Agency Co., Ltd. (commonly known as the Wheat Marketing Board). (2) Their objections to the principle involved in a varying rate of duty upon a commodity imported into Auckland, into Wellington and into South Island ports. , (3) Their contention that reasonable notice should have been given of the Government’s intention to permit such a large quantity of wheat to’ bo imported at a reduced rate of duty. The Auckland Chamber feels that while a sliding scale of duties on wheat and flour has the object of protection of wheat-growers, the present position tends to favour wheat speculators, and to act to the detriment of supplies of cheaper bread for the people, and of cheaper grain for the poultry people and other industries.

(4) Then- opinion that the poultry industry could be made a highly profitable export industry if wheat were available at reasonable prices. “The Auckland chamber also compares the protection afforded this one industry with that afforded other Dominion enterprises.

“There are many matters which bear upon this subject, not only in the marginal rates fixed by the Government for wheat and for flour, such as are governed by the sliding scale of duties, and the purchases that would have been made by the trade of New Zealand wheat under the Government price-fix-ing measures, but also in connection with the bearing upon the reciprocal trade agreement between New Zealand and Australia.

“Since the wider ' subject of interchange of trade between Empire countries will come into discussion at the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, it is suggested that further consideration of this matter might be deferred for some few weeks when it will be known what widened opportunities will be offering for reciprocity in: trade matters.”

The chairman, Mr. A. D. Kerr, said he bad been informed that a good deal of the land in Canterbury was only fit ,for raising wheat, and for no other crop. . . Mr. M. G- C. McCaul asked if this did not prove that the Canterbury land was valued too highly. Ho pointed out that a good deal of maize meal was imported from South Africa by pig and .poultry farmers. It was a strange thing that the Government placed a duty on whole maize from South Africa, while maize meal was allowed in free. If the New Zealand wheat-growers were to provide pig and fowl feed at a reasonable price it would not be necessary to import so much maize from South Africa. • Mr. W- B. Matheson said the statement that most of the Canterbury land was fit only for wheat-growing was a little too sweeping. Wheat was a good rotation crop, but it was not essential in agriculture. He favoured a subsidy as against a tariff. The report was adopted.