Flour and Wheat Duties Should Stay

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 809, 1 November 1929, Page 11

Flour and Wheat Duties Should Stay

COMMITTEES REPORT DEBATE IN HOUSE Press Association PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. Features of the report of the Select Wheat Committee presented to the House today are recommendations that the Dominion should be self-supporting so far as wheat requirements are concerned; that wheatgrowers should have protection and that the sliding scale of duties affecting flour and wheat should be continued, but that bran and pollard be admitted free of duty. The report suggests an investigation of the cost of baking and distributing bread. The report of the committee states that the items of the order of reference on which the committee was instructed to report to the House and the conclusions of the committee thereon were as follow: (1) The advantages from a national standpoint of the policy of the Dominion being self-supporting, as far as its wheat requirements are concerned. The committee is unanimously of the opinion that the Dominion should be selfsupporting. (2) Whether the wheatgrowers of the Dominion require protection or State assistance to enable them to market their product in competition with importations from other countries. The committee is unanimously of opinion that wheatgrowers should have some form of protection. (3) What form of protection or State assistance, if any, would effect that object. without unduly adding to the cost of wheat, flour, bread, fowl wheat, and wheat offal, to users? The committee recommends that the present sliding scale of duties affecting wheat and flour be continued, but that bran and pollard be admitted to the Dominion free of duty. (4) Whether protection is required for the flourmilling industry? The answer to this question is covered by answers to preceding questions, but the committee unanimously recommends that the Department of Industries and Commerce be asked to investigate' the operations of the milling industry, with the object of ascertaining whether Hit; cost of production of flour can be reduced. (5) Whether tlie costs of baking and distribution of bread to consumers are reasonable or otherwise? The committee unanimously recommends that in view of the disparity in the cost of baking and distribution of bread In various centres, the Department of Industries and Commerce be instructed to investigate the cost of baking, and distribution of bread. STRONG ORGANISATIONS Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) presented the report of the select wheat committee. He said that is was in relation to the amount of protection that should be afforded the industry that the committee could not reach an agreement. Strong Organisations were in control of wheat in New Zealand, he continued, and it could be assumed that they would endeavour to extract the highest possible prices from the consumer that competition with the imported article would allow. Mr. F. Waite (Clutha) contended that bread was comparatively cheap in New Zealand, prices being lower for loaves sold over the counter than in many other countries. The high cost of distribution was one of the most unsatisfactory features in this country. He regretted that duty on flour and wheat could not be reduced to enable lowering of the price of bread. The Rev. Clyde Carr (Tirnaru) said the sliding-scale had at least eliminated speculation in an essential foodstuff. He added that the wheat industry employed more labour than any other branch of farming.

Mr. T. W. McDonald (Wairarapa) said the effect of the sliding-scale was to stabilise the price of bread, but it stabilised it at the highest possible figure. He considered it was time that the wheat-growers of New Zealand gave up the job and employed their labour in other directions. He moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration. Mr. F. Lye seconded the amendment CONSUMERS PENALISED

Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) asked why the people of New Zealand should be penalised by compelling them to pay £l7 14s a ton as against £l3 10s a ton for flour, simply because it was desired to encourage a few farmers to grow wheat? The present position was weighted against the consumers of bread. Ele disagreed* with the statement that the wheat industry employed more labour than any other branch of farming. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) defended the protection afforded the wheat industry. He pointed out, however, that he considered the position could best be met by a subsidy which, to be operated properly, would necessitate State ownership and control of the milling industry. Mr. J. A. McPherson (Oamaru) declared the committee had reached the right decision in the interests of the whole of the people of New Zealand. Mr. G. R. Sykes (Masterton) said it would not be a simple matter for the wheatgrower to turn his attentions to other-branches of the farming industry. Mr. F. Lye (Waikato) said it was the height of folly to help to build up a tariff wall between New Zealand and Australia. He thought flour production costs could be reduced in the South Island if more efficient methods were employed. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said it appeared as if the objection to the sliding-scale came from those parts of New Zealand which did not grow wheat. It would be impossible to maintain a decent standard of living for workers in the industry if it were not afforded some protection. The House adjourned- at 1 p.m.