BRAN AND POLLARD.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18394, 30 July 1931, Page 2

BRAN AND POLLARD.

USE AS STOCK FOODS. PREMIER’S ATTITUDE CRITICISED. EXCHANGE ADVANTAGE. (Times Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. “The law at present in force provides for the admission free under the British preferential and general tariffs of bran, pollard and barley to be used as stock-foods,” said the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, when replying to a question asked by Mr J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton) in the House of Representatives this afternoon.

Mr Y'oung had asked whether it was the policy of the Government, as is done at present, to compel importers of Customs duty-free goods —for instance, stock-foods, such as bran, pollard, and barley—to pay to the Customs authorities an import duty equal to the amount of the bank exchange in favour ’of the importer, thus preventing local importers from passing on to their customers among larmers and stock and poultry raisers the benefit of the saving arising out of, the bank exchange rate operating in favour of New Zealand; and, if such is not the policy of the Government, will the Prime Minister instruct the Customs Department to cease the practice, and give effect to the spirit of the law which provides for the admission into New Zealand of dutyfree goods? The Prime Minister explained that the law also authorised the Minister of Customs to impose dumping duly on such goods in the interest of the primary and secondary industries of the Dominion. “It will be obvious,” he said, “ that if an exchange premium of over 18 per cent, was obtained by importers' of Australian goods (such as eggs, pork, oatmeal, or onions) without any restrictive action, the result would be to encourage the sale of such goods in the Dominion rather than' local products. In cases, therefore, where it is considered necessary in the public interest, a dumping duly equal to the amount of the exchange premium obtained in excess of 5 per cent, is imposed on bran and pollard Imported from Australia. So far, this action has not been taken with respect. to barley imported for stockfood.” Position of Farmer. Mr F. Lye (United —Waikato) said that the Prime Minister’s attitude ap- . peared to be that if a merchant claimed the advantage of exchange with Australia and satisfied the Customs Department that such an advantage would not be given to consumers of bran, pollard and flour a dumping charge would not be levied. That was a most extraordinary position. A large section of members of the House had declared in favour of the abolition of dutv on stock-foods, wheat and flour. FroVn what the Prime Minister had .said It seemed to him that 6200 wheat growers were to be given far greater consideration that ten times that number of poultry farmers and pig raisers In the Dominion and that the latter primary producers were to be called upon..to. pay to the merchant 9s 6d per ton qn i ;Polj.ard and £i a ton on flour. This policy seemed to him to follow the precept “ To him that hath more

shall be given." ;.j; He iwas ; certainly not satisfied, Mr 'Lye said, that everything was being v ' done to assist the farmers of the Dominion in the raising of their stock, whether it was poultry or pigs. He had reserved many communications pointing out that this duty was in operation and it was understood that a merchant could ■ pocket 9s Gd per ton on pbllard'providing he gave an undertaking to' the Customs Department that it would hot be handed over to the consumer of pollard. Mr Lye protested against this action for he considered it was not fair and reasonable at tills time when every effort should be made to reduce the farmers’ cost of production, and any benefit which was to be derived from exchange position should go to the farmer and not to the importer. Embarrassing the Industry. Mr J. A. Macpherson (United — Oamaru) said it had been reported to him from the South that millers had ceased buying wheat from farmers ’there, and he asked the Prime Minister to investigate the position. Large (quantities of flour here being brought into this country and this, added to Ihe exchange problem, was embarrassing the industry. Millers had followed tills up by taking advantage of farmers who were of the opinion that there would this year be a surplus, with disastrous results to the growers on account of the absence of offers from millers. lie hoped the industry would be safeguarded, as New Zealand still relied upon the local production for supplies of bran and pollard. Replying to a question by C. A. Wilkinson (Independent—Egmont), Mr Forties said if a duty to counteract the exchange rate were not imposed, it would mean that instead of the advantage being felt in New Zealand, the benefit would go to Australia. There was no desire to deny anyone any advantage that might be had, but it was not intended to allow that advantage to be used to the detriment of New Zealand industry. Mr ,1. F. Fletcher (Independent— Grey Lynn) : The merchant gets it free, but the farmer does not. Mr Forbes said the farmer got the '.article free of duly, but not with the ’added advantage accruing from tin depreciated exchange rates. Members had consistently pressed for protection for local industries, but now it was being given they were urging it should be taken away. Members: Why give it to the mer-' chants? Mr Forbes said it was better that the benefit should be given to the New Zealand merchant than to the Australian.