WHEAT AND FLOUR.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13437, 8 November 1907, Page 6

WHEAT AND FLOUR.

MONOPOLY PREVENTION BILL

THE COMMITTEE ST AWE

Per Press Association,

WELLINGTON; Nov. 7.

The Flour and other Products Monopoly Prevention Bill came before .the House of Represerata Lives to-night. On the motion to go into Committee, the Premier said -thai a feeling had been prevalent in the country that the duty should be taken off wheat and flour as a means of reducing the price of bread. An examination of this suggestion, however, ■\vould show that' such a course was not altogether desirable. If. the duty had been ent-irelv removed from wheat- it would probably mean that the farmers would cease growing this commodity, and! consequently the country would be at the mercv" of outside countries. As it was the "country did not grow much excess wheat, oyer that required by the people of the "Dominion and consequently 'they were largely dependent on their own growers of wheat, owing to the great distance from other wheat-growing countries for a supply of wheat for flour. He liad thought that a sliding scale could have be«m° introduced to deal -with any monopoly or combination to keep up the price of wheat, and flour, but recent happenings in the world's markets had shown that this could not be accomplished. How-, ever, .under this Bill an Arbitration Court would be set up toi deal with whewt_and' flour when they reached abnormally high prices. The Bill also provided for the Arbitration Court dealing with any monopoly or combination that might seek to raise the price of potatoes. Tlis Premier then outlined the provisions of the Bill which lias already been circulated, and added that since the Bill had been returned from the Commerce Committee a, provision was made for a rcipiissacMotive of !t.be -AgricurturivL -and Pastoral Societies being a member of the Aibi-tration Court and "with this provision he was in accord. .Mr Hogg contended that a. combination had bjien in existence since 1903 to limit the output of flour and keep up its price and it was high time that, legislation was introduced .to deal with the trust. The Bill before the House was on similar lines to the Canadian measure.. H© was not going to find fault "with the Bill, but he cordially welcomed it" He contended that wheat in New Zealand was only I<l or 2d on the average higher than in Australia, yet flour in New Zealand was from £1 to '3os per ton higher, consequently the farmer -was not. benefiting but) in company with consumers was being penalised by the high rate at) which bread was sold. He did not lay all the blame on the bakers, as -the thrifty housewife could always bake bread and often produce a better and more wholesome article, but- the'housewife coulcl not protect herself from the millers' ring. He intended to support the Bill and hoped that, the duty would soon-be removed from flour, not temporarily, but permanently, :as he considered there was no reason for iin-' posing a duty on flour and potatoes. Mr Massey, replying to Mr Hogg, contended that private individuals could always grow wheat cheaper than the Stat© coiild "do so. He contended that, as a result of 'the agitation for • the removal of the flour duty, the area, of wheat grown had been gradually reduced, as farmers were afraid that in time of shortage they would ha.ve to compete with better-fav-ored countries in regard to wheat-growing. If the total wheat grown became less than was required by the consumer's of the Dominion then good-bye to the cheap loaf. Referring to Mir Hogg's contention that Australian wheat find- flour should be* allowed to come in duty free, Mr Massey reminded, the House that- the duty imposed by the Commonwealth on New Zealand flour "was £2 lCs per ton. He. favoured the proposal to place a representative from the country. on the_ Arbitration Board. He did not think it was necessary to bring potatoes under this :' Bill. He' did not 'think the Bill "was perfect- or t-ha.t it was really necessary; still he intended! to support it Mr T. Mackenzie referred in detail to Mr Hogg's statements and combated his. remarks as to-the high price of flour being due to the .Millers 7 Trust. He stated tha6* the American wheat-growers were combining for tlie purpose of regulating the prieei that wheat should be placed on the market. For some years 1116' flour consumers of the world had been living on the accumulations of previous years, whilst the number of wheat and flour consumers of the world had increased since 1897 by sixty-three millions. Mr Hogan pointed out that earlier in tlie session the' Premier promised to include in. his Bill a provision to allow of ■ municipalities establishing flour mills, a-l- ---! so to remove the duty by means of a sliding scale, : but he Bad apparently given way on, both these points. He contended that the. farmer had protection over the Australian farmers by reason of the freight and the fact that whilst the, average yield per acre in Australia- wa.'-> only 10 bushels, the yield in New Zealand was 30 bushels. He 'combatted the -state- ' ment that a calamity would arise if wbeatgrowing ceased by the closing down of Sour-mills. In such acase it would only mßan that 543 people woidd be _ thrown out of employment in the milling industry and! in a population of nearly million this "was not a great calamity. The ple of England were in a- better position I as regards flour and bread. He pointed out that under the Bill if the price of "wheat and floxir "\vas abnormally m Australia it would also be high in New Zealand, although they might be giving the commodity away in Canada and California. The clause should be amended to include Canada- when arbitrating on i lllr Barclay urged that the State should enter into the wheat-growing and flourmilling industries. / u " Mr Reid contended that the State could not compete with private enterprise m the wheat and flour industry. Mr Ell replying to Mr T: Mackenzie, said that the reason that the area of wheatwas reduced was because the farmers found it. more profitable to fatten sheep and lambs- and produce butter. He com mended the Government for an honest effort in trving to defend a monopoly. Mr Flatman said that he would support the measure which was experimental and if successful could be extended in other directions. The Premier in reply, Raid that he believed the measure was worthy of a trial, and the fteadkst way of giving 'an "opportunity for dealing with the high price ol [ flour. -

The Bill was s-efc down for committal on Friday.

The House adjourned at 12.35 a.m.

PRICES STILL FALLING

Association—By Telegraph-Convnghi Received 0.2 a.m., November Btli. SYDNEY, November 7. Holders of wlient are disinclined to take less than 5.5, which is above buyers' ideas. A little business is doing at 4s 9d to 4 lOd. Bran and pollard Is to Is 2d.