DUTIES ON PRODUCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14522, 18 August 1911, Page 5

DUTIES ON PRODUCE.

INTERESTING DEBATE

tiN MR HOGG'S BILL. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Au«. 17. _ Vt ifcn the iioiiio met uija aibca-aocno All- A. W. liugg moved the auaond leading ot tuo AooUuuii oi Duti«s» on i'ood uul. i±o said iio tad ior several veaas been endeavouring to. kavo' the uuty reniyvod from Hour, mid would always strive tq get r.d of duties on necessaries of life. The piesent Hill was not confined to flour, Out provided for a. variety of articles necessary lor human comfort. Men who. made food scarce committed a moral crime of the worst description. Mr Wilford advocated a royal commission to get expert opinion on the great problem of food supply. Ho supported tlio Bill.

Mr Luke favoured a coninussum, but could not support the Bill. Mr Buxton sa.d if the Bill was carried a lot of farmers must go out of the producing business altogether. Mr Okey agreed with the Bill. Farmers did not, he said, require a duty on butter. He denied the existence of a butter ring. Messrs Foolo and McLaren supported the Bill. Mr Btallworthy opposed the abolition of the duty on flour, but would support the second peadimg, us ho con&idewsd the import duty on butter was not necessary. Mr J. C. "Thompson said that if tho duty were taken off flour he was suro the wheat industry would be endangered; if it were not ruined it would be crippled. He advocated increased productively and increased settlement of the land as the solution of the difficulty of food supply. If a Royal Commission were set up ho considered that tho important matter of a reciprocal treaty with Australia should receive ■special attention. Mr Wright supported the Bill as a protest against the continual increase in tho prico of food stuffs. Mr Laurenson maintained that it was not the cost of living that had increased. It was the standard that had increased, and one of tho factors of that increase was higher education. For a number of years the country had experienced phenomenal prosperity; that had increased land values, which, was responsible for the present Ingb cost of food. He pleaded for more consideration on the part of members for measures dealing with the food supply of the people. Mr Fisher contended that the solution of the problem would not be found until a tariff board was set up. _ He admitted that the standard of iiring had increased, but the cost had also : increased materially. Mr Russell did not anticipate an; | practical result would follow the second reading, because legislation of the character would only emanate with effect from the Government of the day. Ho hoped that after the general election the Government would be ,'ompelled to recognise the necessity of doing something in the matter. The Bill went in the right direction. Mr Millar said the whole matter formed one of the greatest economic questions, and tho only way to deal satisfactorily with the question was to limit profits. If the Bill became law to-morrow, exactly the same; state of affairs would bo found to exist under it as existed now. The Bill was not a solution of the real question. r i'he way butter was being sold wholesale for Is and retailed for Is 6d was nothing short of robbery. The prico of money entered into the difficulty, ai.d if the matter was to bo thoroughly investigated the price of money would have to be considered too. By tightening up the cost of money tho cost of living was tightened too. Tho Government was expected to deal-with this huge matter in a week or two. ! From the point of view of tho actual cost of living the matter had become the most serious of the day. The land owner was reaping the benefit of piling up the cost of living. This applied more to land values in the cities than lin the country. If the duty were taken off flour New Zealand would be made the dumping ground for Australian wheat. He was not going to. tax one section of the community and protect another. He did not think the tariff would ever have any permanent effect on the cost of living. He could not see his way clear to support the Bill. Mr Hogan contended that State competitjon was tho only way to regulate prices. Mr T. Mackenzie denied the asserI tion that flour would be cheaper if the \ duty was removed from wheat. With reference to trusts an endeavour shotdd bo made to meet them and cripple their influences. If Australia would co-operate and extend concessions to [ New Zealand he was prepared to iirnait that they could work on a profitable basis, but Australia would not do that. They were not going to allow importations into the country to the detriment of the producers there. Protective tariffs were to keep people producing on their own lands. Mr Ell favoured municipalities having power tq establish flour mills -nd bakeries.

The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.40 p.m.