THE BUTTER FAT TAX.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 16824, 29 November 1916, Page 4

THE BUTTER FAT TAX.

THE MINISTER INTERVIEWED.

SOME PLAIN SPEAKING.

ACTING-PREMIER QUOTES FIGURES.

(Per Press Association.'' .^ELLINGTON, Nov. 28. A number of members of Parliament waited on the Minister to-day to urge .tlie abolition of the butter-fat tax. The deputation .comprised Messrs Anderson (Mataura), Young (Waikato), J^ield (Otaki), Okey (Taranaki), Wilkinson (Egmont), Hornsby (Wairarapa), Dick- - son (Chalmers), Sykes (Masterton), Hunter (Waipawa). The chief spokesman for the deputation was Mr G. J. Anderson, who stated that the members were there to present the views of their constituents in regard to the butter-fat tax. The Minister had said that it was not a tax, but a license fee. That was, however, a mere quibble of words.' No member of Parliament had been invited to the deputation whose constituency had not a large proportion of those engaged in dairying. The "deputation thought it quite right that the Govern- - fent should endeavour to reduce the cost of living, hut it was not right that the resultant loss should be placed upon any individual industry.' it should be borne by the general taxpayers of th© country. He contended that the tax acted unjustly upon one or the hardest working sections of ftie community, and it was inequitable m other ways. For every IOOIbs. of butter fat, the small back-blocks man took to the factory, he had to pay very nearly Is. It meant in many cases that the small man—he was not talking about the big man—would have to pay for every cow at least £1 per year. Coming to the cheese districts, said Mr Anderson, the whole of Southland province would pay into the fund in the vicinity of £40,000, in return for which it would receive about £5000 because it had only two butter factories. The result was that the money went to other parts of the Dominion. The newspapers stated that cheese was being commandeered at B|d per pound in London. "We m the South Island." added Mr Anderson, "offered it to the Government early in the season at Bd. The whole output could have been bought at B|d., but this inequitable tax was placed on instead." The Hon. James Allen stressed th« >->ir point that the G^v-ernment was just as ; anxious as the members of the deputation to rpstnct the cost of living. When the country was faced with an immediate increase in the retail price of butter to Is. lOd. and a little later to 2s. per lb., the only way the Gov- \ ernment could hold the prices in re- ; straint was by a definite promise that it would deal with the situation. ■ Mr Anderson: Why didn't you purchase? ...

The Minister: Do you suggest that we did wrong in the method we adopted in reducing the price of butter? Yon suggest that the burden should be borne, by the general taxpayer. "Mr Hornsby: The same as was don© with wheat.

Mr Allen added that they had been looking at the matter from the point of'view of losses sustained but he would invite them to look at it from the point-of view of gain, as there wa! an absolutely unrestricted market. Ii butter had been commandeered at Is 2d the dairy farmer would be getting 2£d, a pound .less than he'was receiving at present. The only commodities left unrestricted as far as their export was concerned ware butter and cheese.

The Hon. Mac Donald stated that the dairy farmers has pointed out that the , restriction of th c . price to Is 7d per lb. was harassing them, and stated that if they coxild not inereaso it to Is lOd the whole of their supply -would-.|euve their factories and go to the cheese factories!! This was the reason why this particular system of taxation had been adopted. There were 70.000 people who owned from one acre, to ', ten thousand acres and controlled the whole of the produce of this country, but what about the other million people? Were they going to allow 70,000 to raise the price of food prodcts without limitation? As soon as the Government put its finger on any commodity to reduce the cost of living, then the particular section which was affected claimed that it was being harshly treated! As compared with pre-war rates, the dairy farmers, after taking off the levy of |d. per lb., wer.? now receiving an additional sd. per lb. The--Minis-ter then quoted the following comparative prices prevailing before and after\ the war: ; r 1914. 19167" \ ■d. d. January... ... 11 25 13.37 February 10.98 14.27 March * ■:.. ..>. 10.72 14.78 April 10.18 14.88 May 10.28 15.28 June 10.59 15.48 July - 11.20 15.38 August 16.,'J9 September 17.01 The figures in the 1916 column are shown with the deduction made equivalent to $d per lb butte rfat. The Minister concluded by quoting the restrictions placed on other industries, with a view to showing how favourably the butter people were situated in having/ unrestricted markets. Under present conditions, he said, un- , til Parliament was in session he could not see how any great alteration could be made.