Wheat Duties Have Support of House

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 810, 2 November 1929, Page 14

Wheat Duties Have Support of House

COMMITTEE’S REPORT ADVERSE MOTION DEFEATED Press Association PARLIAMENT BLDG., Friday. The report of the Special Select Committee, which favoured the retention of the sliding scale of duties affecting wheat and flour and the admission duty free of bran and pollard, was further discussed in the House of Representatives this afternoon, when a motion that the report be referred back was defeated by 20 votes to 50. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) said that it must be abundantly clear that New Zealand would have to depend upon overseas production if it were not for wheat duties. If the wlieatgrowers were left without protection poultry-farming would be killed, and the difficulties of bacon production would 5e increased. He thought it a pity that the committee had not accepted Mr. McCombs’s suggestion that the Government should take over the control of milling and the purchase of wheat. Mr. Jones (Mid-Canterbury) said that he was surprised to hear Mr. Bodkin advocate Government control, which was against the United Party’s policy. The outstanding fact of the committee’s report was that the sliding scale of duties, introduced two years ago, had stood the test of time and was still the soundest system the committee could find. Wheat was but a small proportion of the actual cost of bread. If the ordinary householder would pay cash and carry his own loaf home he could escape the payment of the equivalent of the wheat duty. If the country did away with wheat production the result \vould be that another million lambs would be thrown on the export market, which would be seriously affected. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) approved of the scheme outlined by Mr. McCombs. He said that there was an element of unfairness in the present system. The country should have to bear the cost of supporting the industry. At present the burden was not resting on the community in accordance with ability to pay, because the poorer people consumed more bread per family of a given size than people in better circumstances. Mr. S. G. Smith (New Plymouth) contended that the wheatgrower was not getting the full benefit of protection. He suggested that material benefit went to the miller, and he believed the Government should seriously consider the system of payment of subsidy to growers in preference to the sliding scale of duties. Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki) said that it would be a serious thing for New Zealand if the wheat industry disappeared. He regretted that it had not been decided to give more help to the poultry industry.

Mr. IT. R. Jenkins (Parnell) cited support for the principle of free trade within the Empire as a ground for opposition to wheat duties. He did not suggest, however, that protection should be removed suddenly. Mr. T. W. McDonald (Wairarapa) moved that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration, Mr. F. Lye (Waikato) seconding the amendment.

Several members defended the protection afforded the wheat industry Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Waitom'o) stated cheap foodstuffs were essential They could not afford to put a duty on wheat in New Zealand because it meant that the price of flour went up. He agreed there was need of a searchmSJn<iuir% into the milling industry. xr 1 Si 0 -k® ader of the Labour Party, Mr. ±i. E. Holland, said he would like to see a business-like, systematised plan under which growers were guaranteed a decent return for the wheat they produced, and a bonus to bring the return for operations up to a satisfactory figure seemed to be the correct method to deal with the situation. The wheat industry was entitled to the same protection as was afforded any other natural industry in New Zealand. The amendment was defeated by 50 votes to 20 and the report was adopted Following is the division list: For the Amendment—2o McDonald , McDougali Bioadfoot. MfKppn FI efr* 11 r ivLcjveen Martin TU Mason Hogan Munns Jorduf Rush-worth i iT,„ 1 Semple Lang-stone Smith Lye Wright Against the Amendment —-50 McCombs Armstrong Macmillan V”? 1 e Macpherson Bodkin 1101 Makitanara fV dkm Massey j^i** 1 * Munro Chapman ivi urdoeh Chnkard Nash Coates Ngata Cobb© O’Brien de la Perr&Ue Parry gj?L le Poison Jv el . d Ransom forbes Samuel Ha*if er Savage 7j. .. htallwcrthy Hamilton Stewart Hawke Sullivan e ;V- v , Taverner Holland, 11. Veltch < Holland, Jl. E. Waite Howard Wilford Jones Wilkinson Williams Lmklater Young