THE FLOUR DUTY.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9149, 23 July 1908, Page 6

THE FLOUR DUTY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—No doubt you are aware that the agitation last year for the removal of duties on flour and potatoes caused 18,430 acres of wheat and 4,500 acres 0f... potatoes less to be sown than the preceding year, and the serious southern drought considerably reduced the yield* We all know too well that a farmer would much prefer 35 bushels of wheat per acre, at 3s 6d yielding £6 2s 6d, to 20 bushels at 4s 9d, yielding £4 15s. If any particular State in the Commonwealth should have a drought, and New Zealand a surplus, we are debarred from supplying, owing to the Commonwealth's heavy duty of £2 10s per ton on flour and olFal; yet when New Zealand farmers have a drought or damaged crops, and want more to save them from loss, our small duty of £1 per ton makes New Zealand the dumping ground for the Australian surplus, and seriously interferes with the New Zealand wheat grower and miller. Now, don't you think our duties on wheat and flour ought to be similar to Australia? As the Commonwealth's high price always ruling for oft'al and the cheapness of wheat prodnctian, augmented with railage rates on wheat, etc., being quite 40 per cent, below ours, precludes New Zealand from competing with the present low duty of £1 per ton, which is our only protection. We hear the Australian millers are advising New Zealand merchants that it is the New Zealand Government's intention to abolish the duty on flour this year, so you can see at a glance the dangei of Mr Hogg's stupid agitation, which if allowed will ultimately put us at the mercy of foreign Powers in time of trouble, besides crippling numerous allied industries, as the farmer is a very nervous creature. The farmers of New Zealand | want to be encouraged, not discour- j aged, as Jtheir protective duties on produce are infinitesimal compared with Australia's, though a "few" in New Zealand think that the farmer should be heavily taxed for boots, clothing, etc., yet supply produce on a free trade basis. Of course we know those in the butter line, with its duty of 22* per cent., care little j about the produce grower. The cry is open up fresh agricultural lands, but .what is the use of doing so'unlesa

the'" products of the soil are properly protected, *to compete with greedy Australia. You will notice the wharf and timber workers want more duty put on foreign timber, to keep them fully employed, even though New Zealand timber is a vanishing: asset. Yet these people forget how their agricultural and railway brethern would fare with dutyfree flour; in fact it would cripple all agricultural labour, also the New Zealand railways. It has often been stated by a "few" that if the New Zealand farmer and miller cannot compete with Australia, America and Canada, without protection, they are not worth considering. This argument should also apply to the boot, clothing and butter industries, with their heavy protective duties, if they cannotg compete with the sweated surplusages of Europe, America, Australia and Canada, without protection, they are not worth considering. New Zealand has experienced two,abnormal years, through drought, and probably there will not be a recurrence for some time to come, and we cry aloud for commercial rest, i.e., those who have anything at stake in the country.— I am, etc., LOCAL INDUSTRY. ' P.S.—Remove the New Zealand duty on butter when there is a sluir/p on in Australia, how would the New Zealand industry fare?