New Wheat Duties Under Criticism

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 175, 14 October 1927, Page 12

New Wheat Duties Under Criticism

CHANGES IN TARIFF SLIDING SCALE RETAINED

(THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Thursday. “1 am not sure tha* the Government is not allowing the wheat growers to over-reach themselves. If this happened the result might be similar to what occurred in England when we had the repeal of the corn laws.” This assertion was made in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. J. McCombs, member lor Lyttelton, during his advocacy of moderate protection and moderate protection only for the New Zealand wheatgrower. His grievance in chief was that farmer members of the House had been anything but consistent in their attitude, having refused protection to languishing secondary industries and at the same sitting agreeing to protection greater than was asked for by the industry itself to wheatgrowers. Much time of Parliament was devoted to discussing the Minister’s proposals to increase the duty from Is Id a bushel to Is 3d a bushel when the current domestic value at the port of export to New Zealand is 5d 6d a bushel. The duty on flour remained the same, but was assessed on the current domestic value of £l3 10s a ton instead of £l3 a ton. GUARANTEE FAVOURED Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Nationalist Party, complained that the Government lacked a definite policy in dealing with wheat, and had been oscillating all the time between different figures of duty and the sliding scale. He favoured a guaranteed price as the only satisfactory solution of the problem;. “Instead of chopping and changing about,” he said, “let the Government establish a definite policy, and so encourage the farmers to go on growing wheat.” Hon. Mr. McLeod: Have they not brought down a definite policy? Mr. Forbes: It has not done it in a practical way. Mr. Coates: How would you fix the price? Mr. Forbes: I believe that a definite price should be fixed. The Hon. D. Buddo, Kaiapoi, said that they were prepared to give the tariff a trial. If the industry were going to continue, something had to be done to help the farmers. WITHOUT PLAN The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, did not think that anyone would object to a provision giving the wheat-growers a fair return, but the Dominion’s wheat-growing seemed to be wholly without plan. He thought that if the Minister of Customs could induce the Minister of Agriculture and his department to co-operate with the farmers and have a certain area sown each year so as to provide for the full requirements of the Dominion, the industry could be built up. Mr. McCombs recalled that in 1922 when the wheat-growers had approached the House for protection they received much more than they had asked for—largely through the persistent efforts of the member for Ashburton, Mr. Nosworthy, who was then Minister of Agriculture. Several other members protested against the wheat and flour proposals during a long discussion. The resolutions were finally adopted.