FOWL WHEAT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1932, Page 3

FOWL WHEAT

IMPORTS PROM AUS^’ALIA. QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE. 1 Wellington, November i 6. An item of £25,400 for the purchase of fowl wheat from Australia gave rise to a brief discussion in the House today, when the (Estimates of the Department of Industries and Commerce, Tourist, and Publicity, were unde, r consideration

'Mr R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) asked for further information regarding the purchase. At what pDce wk. s the 'wheat bought, .at what price was it sold, and who got the “rake oft"’? A .sample of the wheat which h e had received was of very poor quality indeed, and he wished to know who received the profits . when the wheat was .retailed bn behalf of the Minister (the Hon. It. Masters).

The Hon.* Adam Hamilton sajd that vuctually there wa(s a credit from the sale of the wheat to 'balance the outgoing of £28,400. The wheat itself was imported through the- Auckland market. He did not think the middlemen received any more profit than they did on wheat sent to Auckland from Cantor-' bury. Mr Semple; I understand that the; wheat waj sold on the wharf at Auckland for ! 5s 3d and 5s 6d a bushel. ’ Mr Hamilton: It was sold on the .same basis as wheat from the 60uth. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs): Could you not have imported it into Auckland on the same b a sis ae Canterbury prices ? PROFITS RECEIVED BY GOVERN-

MENT. Mr Hamilton: There was no rake off for merchants. If there was any fh e Government .received it through the Customs Department. .Mr Mason-: That’s the point. Mr Hamilton lcpeated that no ohw but the Government would share in the profits. Mr Semple ; I think the Government got more than its share. 1 Mr Mason said the Minister had explained that the Government had sold the wheat at the price it had in order to maintain the 'standard price in Now Zealand. There was, however, another point to be considered. Wheat which, cost, say, 4s 9d q bushel at Lyttelton | i

cost another shilling, or 5s 9d, wnen trail.-ported to Auckland. If it was fi'OTn Australia for 2s 6d a bushel, he did not claim that the Government should sell it for 2s 6d, but merely that they might have enough pity for the public of Auckland to sell it at the ruling Canterbury prices. ' The Minister: That would knock out Canterbury wheat altogether. Mr-'Mason: Not necessarily, because the amount was limited. I am not suggesting any alteration in the quantity of w\,eat to be imported, but isimplv that Auckland 'people should not be punished '“imply because they happen to-be a long way from Canterbury. CANTERBURY PARITY. The Minister said • that the wheat was delivered jn Auckland at 5s 3d a bushel, which he thought was cheaper than the price of wheat from the south. i>n addition, some assistance had been given Auckland people by lowering the price a iTrtle. If they went too far, he declared, there would he trouble. They had already lowered the Canterbury parity for Auckland people.