WHEAT QUESTION.

North Otago Times, Volume CVII, Issue 17170, 30 March 1927, Page 5

WHEAT QUESTION.

l?5?efis 'AsaoelaHen.y ■ '

" STATED BY MR COATES. . j pMB! l>Ot

TIMARU, Last Night. Speaking to wheat-growers to-day Mr Coates said the figures availaffie to the Government shov/ that since the imposiition of the dumping duty only 247 tons of flour have cpme into New Zealand cf which 135 tons were from Canada, and imported for a special purpose, Much has been said about the large quantities of flour imported from Australia, but the actual importation in recent months are.as follows: Novemfoer 1926, 3337 tpns; December 1926, 967 tons; January 1927, 1889 tons; February, 1927, 4643 tons; March to date 247 tons. As I have already said, the importations during Nocemb'er, January and February were necessary 46 meet a serious shortage of flour dn the country. If ihe importations were in excess of requirements such excess would be very small. The total number bf tons imported during November, December, January and February, viz., 10,836 tons, would represent less than New Zealand's requirements for one month. while the J amount so far imported in March j represented less than one day's sup- i ply of flour for the whole Domin-j ion. The position we are faced with ; now is that this year's (crops will I be about a million bushels short of ! the country's requirements. I am aware that the duty on ' flour is not high enough for New . Zealand conditions in relation to j the duty on wheat. Therefore the | Government is prepared tb submit j to Parliament this session a propos- ' al to raise the duty on flour by • about £1 a ton in order to put it in j its proper relation to the duty on j wheat. This alteration, if given ef- i fect to, should encourage wheat- ] growers to make plans fcr next sea- j son and remedy a ddfficulty to i which attention has frequently i been drawn. ) The total effective duty, with j freight and charges, would then -be | £6 per ton. The Government is quite j willing to assist in any inquiry j which the wheat growers desire in- j to the whole problem of wheat production and marketing with a view of finding some permanent solution of the difficlties surrounding it. It is all the Government ' caii do to raeet the sitiiation if, as appears to be the case, the grower is not pov/ ge.tting the full value of his wheat. This I think is due to the faci that there is a very large amount of wheat nov^ coming on to the market and that the millers have al_ready sufficient stocks of wheat on hand and are disinclined to buy. The remedy appears to he that the farmers should themselves form an association for selling, so that they would bc enabled to liold their wheat until, with the assistance of the additional duty which the Government propose should be imposed on flour, they are ,able to get a price more nearly approximating the true value of their produce." It has been said that because Australia placed an embargo on our potatoes we should place an embargo on Australlan flour. Thiis is quite fallacious. The reason given by Australia for placing an embargo on our potatoes was on account of disease alleged to' exist. This embargo ,was not imposed by way of a pro•hibitive measure. If it could be shown that there was anything affecting Australian flour defrimental to health the Governmeint would he quite prepared to place an embargo on it. I think the foregoing considerations show that anything in the nature of an embargo on flour is impracticable. The -only other course, it seems to me, is to give additional protection through the Customs duties by way of increasing the duty on imported flour. The tariff commission is taking evidence on the question of wheat and flour duties but I recognise that wheatgrowers must also he protected." I must repeat,, what has already been said more than once, that any scheme to relieve the present position which ha's for its 'basis an embargo on flour is impracticable for the following reasons: (1) An embargo would necessitate the price fixing of wheat- flour and bread, and this policy has already been tried' and was abandoned at the request and with the consent of the wheat growers; (2) The imposition of an embargo would he in conflict with our reciprocal treaty with Australia under which the duties were expressly agreed on and can only he varied by mutual agreement or hy six months notice. At the present time our dairy* farmers — who are also passing through had times— • are exporting considerable quantities of butter to Australia— the value of this trade for the last year being over £350,000. Bacon and Dork are also being exporte'd from N«sw Zealand to Australia. The respective values of the export of these commodities for the last twelve months were £23,347 and £16,183. If the New Zealand Government were to place an embargo on Australia flour it would be cpen to Australia, in the' interests of her producers, immediately to place an embargo on our 'butter, bacon, and pork.- This would ( be injurious to the dairy farm'ers.