THE STAFF OF LIFE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 12 September 1907, Page 2

THE STAFF OF LIFE.

I DUTY OK FLOUR AND WHEAT. 'THE PHEMIEWS PROPOSAL SCHEME TO REGULATE PRICES OF WHEAT, FLOUR AND BREAD. AN INTERESTING DEBATE. ABOLITION OF DUTY NEGATIVED. Per Press Association. AVelington, Last Niglu. AAlier the House at 7.30 consideration of the Tariff Bill was continued. Tho Premier opened with a lengthy statement regarding the flour duty. The Premier said he knew some members were desirous of reducing the fluty on Hour £1 a ton, thus making if free. This, however, if agreed to, meant the one icoulfd not be on the free list without the other, except to the great detriment of bread consumers. If the Hour duty were removed there would be no chance of flour-milling being carried on in New Zealand ivith the door left open to tile flour producers of Australia, to send flour in free. He was w'itlfTliosc who wished to see braid" cheapened. It should be free from the possibility of combination to keep ft at a, fictitious price. The quantity of wheat exported from New Zealand 'in 11)05 was !)07,151 HHishels; the export for 190G was 01,100 bushels. The quantity of wheat grown in the colony in

the season IDOS-0 was 0,708,934 bußhels; in 1906-7 it was 6,005,20% bushels. In 1905 5.800,000 bushels were consumed in New Zealand; in 1906, 5,500,000 bushels were consumed and only 01,199 bushels exported. Tbe figures must make it clear that in the event of the duty being taken off flour, it must ultimately come off wheat, and farmers growing wheat would have to senid the greater portion of their wheat out of New Zealand and depend on tie markets of the older world. It was frequently stated that the price of wheat in this country was governed by the price in London. To n large extent that was so, but it was also witliin the knowledge of any person who knew anything whatever about tfie exportation of wheat in years gone by from New Zealand to England, that we. are never able to compete on even terms, so far as the conditions wore concerned, with Australian wheat and wheat from America and fiussia. If we took the duty off wheat, what were we going to do with regard to our wheat or flour. We would have to 'depr.nn upon Australian, wheat or flour exporters, or upon other wheat exporters. If we were going to attain the object, certain members were honestly advocating, of having cheap flour or Jbread, he thought there was a deal to be said for that, /but ho thought it woultl be going out of the frving pan into the tire if they took certain action, and they would be in a position of behg m the hands of a combination of flour(nnllers, not in this country, but in other countries. They would find that the bakers of this country would not be in the hands of the local people over whose actions Parliament would have control, but be in the hands of people outside the country over whom Parliament had no control whatever . For that reason he was persuaded it would bo a huge mistake, as a matter of policy under the belief that we were going to cheapen the price of bread, that we should follow the course of taking the duty off flour or wheat. What effect would that have upon the industry? Tlic amount of capital invested in the industry was £411,058, consequently they would require to look into the question a little deeper. It not only affectcH the. men employed in the towns, but those employed in flic mills. It also affected those engaged in carting wheat from the farms to the railwav stations and to those employed loading steamers. _ He ha.d no hesitation in saving that if they were to dislocate the whole of this industry they would cause a cessation of employment; directlv and indirectly, of several thousands of people. He was sure he was within Ue Hie mark in saying thev would affect the employment of 4000 or 5000, a-nfl that was a very serious matter. The duty on flour into Australia was 50s por ton. During the years of drought that occurred in Australia from time to too, that duty had never been removed. When flour was at the abnormally hMi price of £25 per ton, the Australian (-government nover altered their import duty. The tendency in New Zealand was to go out of wheat growing If Parliament decided to remove the. duty from flour and wheat, they mMi't depend upon it that those farmers who were working in the production of wheat would abandon it altogether. The export last year was under 02,000 bushels of wheat, and 5,100,000 bushels were used m our local consumption. It would be a very serious thing if we removed the duty. He thought if was the duty of Parliament to ensure what" ought to be the goal of those who were urging the removal of the duty—to ensure a fair price being obtained bv the flour nnller, and a fair price being obamedj,y the bakers in proportion to the price they were paying for wheat, we thought the proper course for Parliament to follow was not to attempt to with the question on the Customs tar.fi, ,uut they should let the Government bring down independent Wislation o fix the price at' which, when Horn attains a certain figure, the Go-vcrnor-m-Council should have he power would also necessarily have to make for the I e du v «P«n flour proportionate with he fi at which wheat was being sold if ti,l would haw "0 Z i l' e ; s " a <l« they matter of IL S J P t f " rthcr ' "&* the con s r: ea T^ r P™ e ofh™adto required to enalhln o 1 tlmt was covering this ma ter C " m f et « Proposal fore Members. He took \ ? n ? d -M would rem,;™ t„ £_ took ,t . thi 't they

Council shou]/V7w • quire to have t „,; y "" a,9 ° r °- minimum, fixed fn ?n |" ax ! m " m ™d ' land' for both Zl pi "' ts nt Neiv &»•i

: carried from the X * pnnei l ,le ™> pound loave s P ol „° d f £" **° «*« fonr- «- price ntwh^^tntrWT 1 mate y afforrl tn <,«» <i w le g'tiPrice of he tanS, " at t,H! "■«»« of a fai! scl 1 5 S ,° as t0 tlle I«Bto port, of ft£*" *' ,Cafc «' »c tor dispassionate y wo„H '' e "^ th«t was a faiv W L of I r" 8 ™ , that matter. That fl,?™ I R "" wit!l the to get P-rear, 1 P ° P,C Werc ™««« l po S ib" fo t ,°,7 '\ PVice BS jt also to say a wo ,i i I .. ° w,sW quire to own all the flour mill, £ colony even though «, didnol am thorn all on Tll Bda , t] fe h c «»> which the wheat wi, „,.„„.„ • 1 control tl^^SXVtrtt'G 1 ; vcnimont mills. That, in hit £,£ juw too large a contract, cons the respons.h,,tics the Goyernmcnt had o j e„-shonlde,, Some hon. members « n u Y - tU } tho Government could obtain wheat from Wo farmers „, the ordinary way. TTo M not tunic the warmest advocate of State-owned flour mills Would say that the. Government should carry on those mills at a loss in order to ensure bread being supplied n t a low price, but what would l,e the result if the Government were large Hmycrs of >,YftO!ili from those who owned or

loased the land on which the wheat was raised. The position would be that flic growers would only require to hold back their supplies long enough, or in other words, to 'corner the Biipply, and tho price would hatvc to be raised, and that would operate against State-owned mills. The only way would he for tue Government to own the lands on which the wheat was grown, and to produce sufficient for the food supply of the people. Ho was persuaded in his own roinjd that it would be a mistake, and it was not by any means so good a proposal as that which ho had submitted. He intended in tho same measure to submit proposals for the regulation of tho price of potatoes. He did not desire to be bound literally -'to either the maximum or the. minimum he suggested, but his idea was that when potatoes reached £5 10s or £0 per ton, the Governor-in-Couneil should lie given power to reduce the duty on potatoes until they came back to that price. It must be Tcrniembered' that tho potato growers of Mow Zealand were mostly small men, and that the average acreage under potatoes would not bo Inore than 20 acres, hut they had to remember that every class in the country must be afforded reasonable facility forgetting a fair return from their investment, and whether a man was in a large or a small way, it was due to "Kim, as a matter of ordinary fairness, to see that ho had the chance of earning a reasonable return from tho investment ■ of his labor to produce tho commodity. He merely wished at this stage to indicate what the Government's intention was on this important matter, and to inform members at this earliest opportunity that it would be an undesirable thing for this country to take up

the line of destroying the capital invested in great undertakings, or to throw a large number of people out of employment in order to get a remedy. If they did it to-day in regard to the milling industry, they might do it to some other industry at a future time, and create a bad impression in the Old Country. Where they had an important industry established there was a responsibility on the colony to see that nothing was done to injure or ruin them and throw oat of employment a large number of people. Finally, this country, happily for its people, was in the position of owning its own railways, and so controlling the matter of transport. There was no discrimination and no differentiation in favour of the large user of the railway as against tho small user. He referred to that matter for the purpose of saying that as long as the Government controlled the important business of transport the people were to a large extent protected against the huge octopus-like trusts that existed in America, and which the people there had to fight against. They eould largely protect the people against the trusts winch, through their action, affected the price of the food of the people, and later on, he believed, the country would endorse any sensible proposal to prevent trusts from making an inroad in divers ways into matters that affected the peace and prosperity of the people. In older countries the matter was one of the greatest importance and required to be approached with caution and judgment, and those hon. members who were trying to remove the duty on flour, and necessarily in its train the duty on wheat, would see, he thought, that it would be an unwise thing to do in view of the statement he had made. He' hoped members would agree that it was better to pass the Customs tariff as the Government proposed, and this session there would be legislation submitted to provide a remedy on the lines he had indicated. Mr Fisher said the proposition submitted by the Premier contained an element ef danger, as the Governoi-iu-Council really meant the Ministry. lie urged that a Tariff Board should Hie instituted on the lines of Industrial boards, and which should be free from every commercial interest. It was true, he tedded, tliat the Premier had undertaken to bring down legislation, but would he pass it? Mr Hogg tiianked the Premier for his very generous offer, and felt rather inclined to accept it, but for the reason which ho would outline, he would stand to his guns.- it was easy to understand the arguments "wnich had been brought forward on behalf of vested interests. Since the proposal to remove the duty was first made, he had been deluged with telegrams and requests to drop the subject. They had the miller and capitalist on one hand, and the breadwinner on the other. Some of the leading men of the colony were with him in this campaign. Mr T. Mackenzie jiefended tho farming interests. He said Mr Fisher had cast a reflection pn the Premier. . If the Premier said he would do a thing he (Mr Mackenzie)" believed he would carry it out. Mr Flatman asked what benefit would accrue to tne consumer if the duty were taken off flour. He contended it would go into the bakers' pockets. It would (be a dangerous thing to remove the duty on wheat and flour. Mr Massey said he agreed with tho Premier, but he contended that the Premier's proposals were really the proposals of Mr Ukey, the junior member of • the Opposition. He believed that if flour camo in duty free, wheat would also have to come in free of duty; otherwise the flour-millers of the colony would have to pay duty on imported wheat, and tho consequence would be that tho millers would have to close up Some members appeared to think that abolition of the duty wouUl benefit the consumer, but as an exporting country this was not so, as the price of wheat was governed by the price in the London market. He did not believe in the proposal regarding tho Governor-m-Council, but urged that a sliding scale should he adopted. However he welcomed tho Premier's proposal to bring down a Bill. Then the House could adjust if. Mr Millar explained that flic Premier had already intimated that the Bill would contain a clause providing for power to be exorcised bv the Goveror-m-Council when the commodity reached a certain price. Mr Laurenson said ho did not hcTicve taking oft' tho duty would seriously affect the farming interests of this countf>',,^.quote<' fi S" res to show tlmt the abolition of the duty in England had not an Bldvorse affect on the farming industry, as that industry progressed I until 1870, or 30 years after the abolition of the duty. He contended tliat the price the colony's wheat could be placed at in the London market wouhl always govern the price here. Mr Buddo approved the Premier's proposals. It would, he said, be a serious thing for the fanners if the duty were taken oil' wheat and flour.

Air Hogg said lie fult it his duty to move that flow be placed on the free list, as be believed the people should be relieved from the'harsh tax He contended that the Horn-miners hart oxacted great .profits frojn the people of tU colony. During the past four year J^nn; a 1, eXtra ,° ted £m - m in PWfit.. in 1906, tlie colony's mills had produced tons m 5 abollt o^oDo

'I Mr Graham said the greatest credit ■ was due to Mr Hogg for the manner , i'i which he had proceeded with his campaign, and it was doubtless due to his oilorts that they had the Premier's statement. He urged that, ,undeTt he j circumstances, Mr. Hogg sho'uf t sat

Mr Hogan said ho intended to s „pp„ rt the amendment. Much had been sad of the hardships of the farmers a that they should be assisted, but e asked, what assistance did the feni - community give to local industries w]f the question of granting nroW? agricultural c<l ilw State could take over tW Cj'T' gr ° Wing ita °™ wheat Halt a Inullion wou d purchase toe wSn m ; .ng industry, J the I t aT ' u ° e,np^thcworKersnoweng ag eJl atQ : Mr Gray said he was pleased with th« Premier's statement, but cole 1 tat if any good came out of it the credit would be due to Mr Hoar Mr Hornsby said the p rem ier was finding a way out of a great difficulty, as it the duty were taken off flour, then the people of this colony would be at the mercy of outsido wheat growers. Mr T. Mackenzie said members who desired to abolish the duty on flour should have suggested some means whoroby tho benefit of the removal of {lie duty would go to the consumer. It did not follow that if they took the duty oTl'„ that bread would be an cheaper. On a division, the amendment"Was negatived by 49 to 18.