THE FLOUR DUTY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 8960, 28 October 1907, Page 3

THE FLOUR DUTY.

{$ The high price of commodities, especially bread, formed the subject of some remarks in the House on Friday during the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill. Mr Hogg brought the question under the Premier’s notice, and asked what the Government proposed to do about it. Sir Joseph Ward. You got the Bill noxt week and then you will see What it id. Mr Hogg ? Well, I’m not dStremcly gdnguine about it myself. He considered that ip a country so productive as New Zealand there should be no need for the encouragement of the farmer or pastorallst. Wheat, oais, and grain of every description could be produced in abundance in tills country, and if the farmer was hot able to produce it with moderately cheap land; a flue climate, and productive soil, tiled he could understand -it; What happened immediately after.the House this session had determined to retain.the flour duty? The next day lie had a letter from one of the principal millers in the North Island stating ho had received a telegram that morning to the effect that wheat had suddenly gone up 2d per bushel. Ho presumed that members of the House were not representing the grain merchants or farmers especially, or any of the tiiilleps; They Were there to represent the people, and especially those who were doing their best for the country by increasing the population. But in what way were they encouraging them? They talked a groat deal about reducing the cost of the necessaries of life, but, "when it came to practical results, what was done? Meat, dairy produce, bread-all these articles were dearer than ever before. The price of meat and bread was something unprecedented. Mr T. Mackenzie: Wheat was 7s Bd at one time.

Mr Hogg: It must havo boon a very long time ago. Mi* T. Mackenzie: It is years ago. Air Hogg! Flour iu April of last year was £$ 6s pet ton. There is a difference of £4 10s—fifty per cent. The whole object of the duty is to keep out foreign competition, but I f,ay there’s nothing to justify the rise in prices that lias taken place. 1 intend to introduce a Bill again next' session for thp abolition of the flour duty. A small ring of men are extracting £150,000 a year out of the pockets of the people who can’t afford it. Mr W. Fraser maintained that it was the high prices of products that were making this country prosper-. Oils, and tlio prosperous times must increase the, employment for the workers.- ~ .The argument of the member for Tiasthi’toli Was that the Premier should bring down a Bill prohibiting cho farmers getting more than certain prices for their products, iu order that the workers could get their food for nothing. That was impossible.

Sir Joseph Ward said ho was persuaded that the Government's projtoshls Would do found of a practical Character, hot only in Che interests of the consumer, hut also doiug.that which was absolutely essential in regard to an important industry responsible for the employment of a large number of people. It was easily to say that the flour duty should bo removed, but very much more difficult to carry out. At the present time lie had more information on the question than any other member of the House, and lie was convinced that tire sweeping away of the duty would not depreciate the price of Hour in this country 3s (id per ton. Mr Poland 1 Try it. It won't do auj* hatim Sir Joseph Ward: It would ruin a lot of people without the slightest good being done, and I ain not prepared to see one industry destroyed merely to give way to a cry. In our Bill there's a proposal to meet the fluctuating circumstances.