POLITICAL NOTES FROM WELLINGTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LVII, Issue 8849, 29 August 1907, Page 5

POLITICAL NOTES FROM WELLINGTON.

(Parliamentary' Reporter.) WELLINGTON, This Day. THE DUTY ON FRUIT. Mr Hogg took the initiative in the consideration of the tariff, by moving that the duty on fresh fruit be struck off. He remarked that members urged the removal of taxes from the necessaries of life, and the creation of a free breakfast table. Fruit, he contended, was one of the most wholesome and essential necessaries in existence. Was it not an anomalous state of affairs that although in Great Britain, where there wero old established orchards ami plenty of laud in cultivation, fruit from the colonies was admittod free of duty for the benefit of the peoplo, we, iv this colony, wore making fruit in cities like Wellington, Christclmcrch, Auckland and Duuediu au absolute luxury, quite unattainable by many families. They enjoyed a capital climate, good soil, and lots of opportunities for growing fruit advantageously. Like other members he repre-sented-fruit-growers, but they were also consumers, and much of their fruit nover found its way to a market. Of course, the cost of transit and bad roads wero drawbacks, but he did not believe tho existing duty helped them in any way. In a country like this they could generally find a good, sale for'their fruit. Working people, earning a fair wage, wero only too glad to keep their families supplied with fruit. On what wjis the duty of a penny per pound charged? On apples, pears, plums, cherries, poaches, nectarines, medlars, apricots, quinces, tomatoes and grapes. In Tasmania, during the fruit season, large vessels were loaded with fruit for the London market. How much did the fruit-growers receive there for boxes of apples and pears fit for any table? Not as much as the duty wo imposed—less than a penny per'lb. The duty was intended to be prohibitive, so that the people of New Zealand would be unable to obtain fruit from the other colonies. The duties were taken off tea and sugar at a huge sacrifice of revenue, yet here wero tilings far more wholesome and nutritious on which the duty was retained. The New Zealand grower as surely protected enough seeing that the importer of fruit had freight, shipping charges and insurance to pay. Ho regarded the duty inhumane,"becauso it prevented the workers' families iv the cities and towns getting at reasonable cost au article that was essential to their health and comfort, Was it notabsurd that a colony that was raising so much food for people, abroad should penalise its own inhabitants by taxing any food they preferred from outside? * Who benefited by this duty? Not the grower, because sales were limited, and the midlemau's profits were large. Who suffered? The families, who desired a wholesome article of diet which the State placed byond their reach. If the duty was abolished, during the season when fruit was plentiful the grower could keep the importer at arm's length. He would get as good a price as he did at present. But fruit would be made plentiful all the year round, and dm ing winter in the cities especially, instead of apples and pears being 4d aud fid per lb, they would be retailed for half the price. Mr Lang aud Mr Bennett opposed the proposal, urging that the removal of the duty would ruin fruit-growers, and the industry would be abandoned. Mr Hone Heke contended that the consumer would realise no benefit. The proposal, on division, was lost by r>3 to 1(1. FLOUR—ABOLITION OF DUTY LOST BY ONE VOTE. Mr Hogg moved (1.40 a.m.) to abolish the"duty on flour. This was lost by JJ2 votes to !il. Following is the division list :— For the abolition (31)—Aitkeu, E. G. Allen, J. Allen, Arnold, .Barber, Colvin, Davey, Ell, Field, Fisher, Graham, Gray, Greeuslado, Guiuuoss, Hall, Plogan.'Hogg, Izard, Jennings, Laureuson, Lethbridge, Malcolm, Okey, Poland, Poole, Ross, Seddon, Sidey, Symes, Tanner, Wilford. Against (33 )—Barclay, Bonnet, Bollard, Buddo, Carroll, Dillon, Duncan, Flatmau, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, W. Eraser, Hanau, Herries, Horusby, Kidd, Lang, Lawry, Lewis, McGowa.ii, McNab, Macpherson, Major, Mauder, Massey, Millar, Ngata. Reid, Stallworthy, Thomson, Ward, Witty, Wood. Mr Hogg," amidst some uproar, declared lie had information that MiBarclay had inadvertently voted on the wrong side. In moving the abolition of the duty on flour, last night, Mr Hogg summarised his reasons as follow :—Flour is a prime necessary of life, is in universal use, aud the comfort of the people, especially tho workers with families, depends greatly on its abundance and cheapness. The duty adds very little to the Customs revenue. Its effect is to increase the price by twenty shillings per ton, thus adding to the cost of living and extracting about £100,000 aunually from the consumers to swell the profits of the millowners. The chief objections to the removal of the duty were that the duty was required to enable farmers to get a fair price for their wheat, and its abolition would ruin the flour milling industry and throw numbers out of employment. His reply was that the price of wheat would not be affected, being regulated by the London market. New Zealand farmers had huge advantages over Australian, aud were not restricted to wheat-growing. Mills would still be employed, although the owners' profit would be reduced. The division would show who were the genuine friends of the worker. Amongst those who voted against the removal of the duty were Messrs Fowlds, Millar, Hanan, Thomson and Wood, all of whom, in 1905, voted for the Abolition of Duty on Flour Bill.