THE WHEAT DUTIES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21156, 1 October 1938, Page 15

THE WHEAT DUTIES

SOME LIGHT FROM AUCKLAND

“THE WHEATGROWER” REPLIES TO CRITICISM To keep wheatgrowers apprised of the hostility existing in parts of the North Island to the wheat industry the following from a recent issue of “The New Zealand Sporting and Dramatic Review” may be worth publishing, states the latest number of “The Wheatgrower’’:— The £1,000,000 Bread Tax The people of New Zealand are being defrauded of bread. . This is a plain statement of fact and is based upon a comparison between New Zealand, Australian and British prices. Bread is so dear in our country that people with large families are forced to curtail supply of bread given to their children. This is a serious state of affairs in a country which boasts of its democratic government and its determination to build an Al nation as a result of its concern for the well-being of its citizens.

Simply and solely because the wheat farmers of Canterbury have had the ear of the previous Government and this one and have secured such preferential treatment that they have become dictators to the nation. A handful of farmers are being protected against the best interests of the mass of the people. The abolition of the wheat duty is necessary, apart from the cheapening of the price of bread, there are other industries dependent upon wheat products which must be considered. For example, a large export trade in eggs could be built up and they could be produced cheaply for local consumption. This is only one aspect. There is no sound argument in favour of these wheat duties. They have been manipulated by small cliques of farmers to the detriment of the many.

If, by removing wheat duties these farmers would be permanently distressed it would still, be necessary for the sake of the people to remove the embargo on wheat. But what do we find? The New Zealand wheat grower can easily switch over to dairying or sheep farming. And he can do this without very great hardship and employ more labour. In Australia, a few days’ steam away from New Zealand, the gross wheat yield is enormous and is produced at a quarter the New Zealand cost. At times there has been over-production. We have seen stacks of wheat rotting at railway sidings because it did not pay to rail it to Sydney. The thing is so stupid that one wonders what is wrong with politicians who perpetuate such a policy. Not only is the Australian cheaper than New Zealand wheat, but the quality is better. Our housewives know this elementary fact. What has been said of Australia is true also of Canada. But Canada is more distant so that common sense tells us that the natural market for our wheat purchases is Australia. | The Labour Party’s slogan is: “The greatest good for the greatest number.” How do they reconcile this with the bolstering up of a small section of the people at the expense of the majority which includes all working men and women. It is time New Zealanders pulled themselves together and insisted on a cheaper loaf. “The Wheatgrowccr” Replies i The above finds a suitable home in a publication described as “sporting and dramatic,” says “The Wheatgrower.” The facts are something akin to the “tips” given on the racecourse and the drama is blessed with a good deal of imaginative liberty. Where the £1,000,000 bread tax the writer speaks of comes from can find a solution only in a dramatic imagination, even if, as is claimed, "it is a plain statement of fact based on a comparison with British and Australian prices.” The plain fact, of course, is that whilst this allegation of dear bread has been made by some North Island critics for a number of years, actual comparisons of bread prices have shown that Sydney and Melbourne figures have on occasions been actually a shade higher than those in New Zealand cities. Figures of overseas bread prices are issued irregularly, but at late as April of 1937 the 41b loaf in London was 9.6, and in the Irish Free State 11.5 d. These figures are from the “Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute” of 1937, and perhaps are more dependable than the sporting and dramatic calculations of the writer of the foregoing article. Most writers see to it that at least the heading of their literary phantasies are reasonably correct, but even the £1,000,000 caption can be excused in light of the extraordinary statement that “bread is so dear in our country that people with large families are forced to curtail supply of bread given to their children.” Bread, as a matter of fact, is one of the few domestic foods that has not gone up in price—meat, as an instance, is 50 per cent dearer than some years ago. But wages have been raised to meet these increases, and it has been shown time and time again that bread is the cheapest food to go into the home.

If the wheat duty were abolished, we are told “a large export trade in eggs could be built up.” In effect, we would be able to buy wheat in Australia, pay the cost of transport here, and the dearer and longer freight to England, and beat the Australian eggraiser to the market.

Our hens, seemingly, would have to break the 40 hour week. “But in any case,” we are further informed, “the New Zealand wheatgrower can easily switch over to dairying or sheep farming and he can do this without any very great hardship and employ more labour.” Apparently a milk cow can be produced in a season, and it is rather enlightening to know that more labour can be employed on a sheep farm with probably an anuual revenue of £4 an acre than from a wheat farm with a revenue of £lO an acre. The figures won't work —except in Auckland.

When the Springbok footballers were here last winter some bright literary genius in the North Island discovered th t the cause of the poor showing of the New Zealanders against them was that our boys had lost their punch through the low quality bread they were eating. He has now a challenger in literary Imagination in Auckland. The point, however, that should, be' noted by wheatgrowers is that there may be a section of people disposed to accept the foregoing sort of stuff, and it is the wrong time, therefore, to be quibbling about prices and conditions. —Ed- “The Wheatgrower.”