PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 48, 18 August 1911, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1911. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. By Telegraph —Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Houso of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. DUTIES ON FOOD. Sir Robert Stout's report on the Cook Islands was laid on the table, and it was decided to take the discussion on Thursday next. Mr. Hogg moved the Abolition of Duties on food Bill. He said he had for several years been endeavoring to have the duty removed from flour, and would always strive to get rid of the duties on the necessaries! of life. The present Bill was not confined to flour', I but provided for a variety of articles necessary for human comfort. The man who made food scarce committed a moral crime of the worst description. Mr. Wilford advocated a Royal Commission to get an expert opinion on the great problem of food supply. He supported the Bill. Mr. Luke favored a commission, but could not support the Bill.

Mr. Buxton said if the Bill was carried a lot of farmers must go out of the producing business altogether. Mr. Okey agreed with the Bill. Farmers did not, he said, require a duty on butter. He denied the existence of a butter ring. Messrs. Poole and McLaren supported the Bill, the debate on which was interrupted by the dinner adjournment.

The House resumed tile discussion on J the Abolition of Duties on Foods Bill at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Stalhvorthy opposed the abolition of duty 011 flour, but would support the second reading of the Bill, as lie considered the import duty on butter was not necessary. Mr. J. C. Thompson said that if the duty were taken off flour he was sure the wheat industry would be endangered. If it were not ruined, it would be crippled. He advocated increased productivity of land and the settlement of the land as being the solution of the difficulty of food supply. If a Royal Commission were set up he considered that the important matter of reciprocal treaty with Australia should receive special attention. Mr. Wright supported the Bill as a protest against the continual increase in the price of foodstuffs.

Mr. Laurenson maintained that it was not the cost of living that had increased. It was the standard that had increased.

One of the factors of the increase was higher education. ' For a number of years the country had experienced phenomenal prosperity, and that increased land values, which was responsible for the present higher cost of food. He pleaded for more consideration on the part of members to measures dealing with the food supply of the people of the country.

Mr. Fisher contended that the solution of the problem would not be found until a tariff board were set up. He admitted that the standard of living had increased materially.

Mr. Russell said he did not anticipate any practical results would follow the second reading because legislation of this kind would only emanate with effect from the Government of the day. He hoped that after the general election the Government would be compelled to recognise the necessity of doing something in the matter. The Bill went in the right direction. The Hon. James Millar said the whole matter formed one of the greatest economic questions. The only way to deal satisfactorily with the question was to limit profit. If the Bill became law tomorrow, exactly the same state of affairs would be found to exist under the Bill as existed now. The Bill was not a solution of the question. The way butter was being sold for one shilling and retailed for one shilling and sixpence was nothing short of robbery. The price of money entered into the difficulty, and if the matter was to be thoroughly investigated, the price of money would have to be considered too. By tightening up the cost of money the cost of everything else tightened. The Government was expected to deal with this huge matter in a week or two. From the point of view of the actual cost o; living, the matter had become the most serious one of the day, and the land owner was reaping the benefit of the piling up of the cost of living. This applied more to land values in cities than in the country. If the dutv were taken off flour New Zealand would be made the dumping ground for Australian wheat. He was not going to tax one section of the community and protect another. He did not think the tariff would ever have any permanent effeet on the cost of living. He could not see his way clear to support the Bill. Mr. Hogan contended that State competition was the only way to regulate the prices. The Hon. T. Mackenzie denied the assertion that flour would be cheaper if the duty were removed from wheat. With reference to trusts, an endeavor should be made to meet them and cripple their influence. If Australia would co-operate and extend the concessions New Zealand was prepared to grant, they could work on a profitable basis, but Australia would not do that. They were not going to allow importation into the country to the detriment of the producers here. Protective tariffs were to keep people producing on thir own lands.

Mr. Ell favored the municipalities haying the power to establish flour mills and bakeries.

The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 11.40.