WHEAT AND FLOUR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17012, 10 April 1923, Page 4

WHEAT AND FLOUR.

LABOUR REPLY TO MINISTER. Messrs I>. G. Sullivan. M.P.. K. J. Howard, M-P., H. T. Armstrong. M.P. mid J. .M Combs, M.P.. have received Li > following telegram from the Prime Minister:— ct I handed your telegram ; garding the embargo on wheat and <lmv ro the Hon Mr Nosworthy. who has, prepared a reply winch is published in the Press to-day.” The Labour members have replied as follows : • Mr Nosworthy's latest defence of the floor embargo to which you have referred us is less convincing than hif> former efforts. Mr Nosworthy knows that there is an efficient anti-dumping law on the Statute Book which empowers the Customs authorities to charge the importer with the difference between the export or dumping price and the fair market price in the country of origin, and. on top of that, there is a duty of £2 1 Os a ton on flour, bran and pollard, besides primage duty. The millers asked that the protection should be fixed by statute and Parliament gave thi* industry all the protection asked for. Under the circumstances ihe Government is no more justified in prohibiting the importation of flour than it would be in prohibiting the importation of agricultural machinery or prohibiting the importation of boots. “ Mr Nosworthy knows quite well that tbs market quotation for wheat in Australia when the millers had to boy their supplies was os 3d toi 5s 5d a bushel, and Mr Nosworthy has not satisfactorily explained why New Zealand millers should charge £ls 10s, less o per cent discount, for flour manufactured from New Zealand wheat which

costs the same as Australia. If, as he savs, Australian millers are selling flour at £9 10 net f.0.b., why is it necessary tor New Zealand millers to charge £l4 14s (id net. The extra cost of sacks, 14s, will not account for the difference because that still leaves £3 I Os OH extra profit for the New Tieaj land millers. The extra price which i the Australian millers receive for tlieir I bran and pollard, 30s, is no excuse ! whatever because why should the No Zealand bread consumer have to pay I an extra price for his bread in order | that pigs may have cheap food? “ We have all alone; contended that the New Zealand farmer should be paid 3s 3d for his wheat, embargo or no embargo, because the millers are more than amply protected by the £2 10s dutv. plus primage and plus the anti-dumping law- The farmers gam nothing from the embargo. Under cover of the embargo the millets arc enabled to exploit the farmers because the excess profits which the millers are enabled to extort means lid on every loaf consumed in New Zealand- - ■ The embargo is no protection for | the farmer because if it were lifted i Australian wheat could not be impoi t- | od under 7s a bushel duty paid. The Q2 10s duty on flour is equivalent protection and if New Zealand millers were content with a reasonable profit Australian flour could no more compete successfully with New- Zealand kouv than can Australian wheat. The producers of butter and cheese and meat and wool have to- be content with export parity for their produce and it is unfair that they should be called upon to pay a price for their broad considerably in exoess of its fair markefc value. “ The public servants and the workers generally who have had their incomes reduced bv the Government should not lie called upon to pay artificially high prices for their daily bread.”