DUTIES ON FOOD STUFFS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 1037, 18 August 1911, Page 5

DUTIES ON FOOD STUFFS.

MR HOGG'S ABOLITION BILL. Jiy Telegraph—Press Association. WELLIN&tujn, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr A. W. Hogg, M.P. (Mavterton) moved the second reading of the "Abolition of Duties on Food' Bill." I Mr Hogg said he had for several I years been endeavouring to have the i duty removed from flour, he would | always strive to get rid of the duties | on- the necessaries of' life. The pres- j ent Bill was not confined to but J provided for a variety of articles necessary for human comfort. The mlan who made food scarce, committed a moral crime of the worst description. Mr Wilford advocated a Royal Commission to get expert opinion upon the great problem of the food supply. He supported the Bill. Mr Luke favoured a Commission, but eould 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. The > farmers did not, he said, require a duty on butter. He denied the ex- j istence of a butter ring. Messrs Poole and McLaren supported the Bill. ,Mr Stall worthy opposed the abolition of the draty on flour, but would support f«he second reading of the Bill, as he considered the import duty on butter was not necessary. . • ; Mr J. C. Thompson said that if the duty were taken off flour he- wwsure the wheat industry would be endangered. It it were not ruined, it would, be crippled. He advocated the increased productivity of the land and the settlement of the' land as being a solution of the difficulty of the food supply. If a Royal Commission were set up, he considered that the important matter of a reciprocal treaty with Australia should receive special attention. Mr Wrighit supported the Bill as a protest against the continual increase in the price of food-stuffs. Mr Laurenson maintained that it I was not the cost of living tlxat had increased,. It wias the standard of living that had increased. One of the factors of the increase was higher education. For a number of years the country had experienced phenemonal prosperity. and that increased land values, winch was responsible for the present high cost of food. He pleaded for more consideration on the part of members to measures dealing with the food supply 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,, .but the cost .had also increased materially. Mr Russell said he did not anticipate that any practical rpsult would follow the second reading of the Bill, because legislation of th/is character would only emanate with effect from the Government of the day. He hoped that after the general election the Government would lie compelled to recognise the necessity of doing something in the matter. The Bill went in the right direction. The Hon. J. A. Millar said the whole matter formed one of the greatest economic questions. The only way to deal satisfactorily with the question was to limit profits. If the Bill ber came law to-morrow, exactly the same : state of affaire wotfld be found to ex- | ist under the Bill as existed now. The I Bill was not a solution of. the question. The way-butter was being sold for Is and retailed for Is 6d 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 was tightened. The Goverment was expected to deal with this huge matter in a week or two. From the point of view of the actual cost of living, the matter had become the' most serious one of the day. The land owner was reaping the benefit of the piling up of the cost of living. This applied more to land yalues in the cities than in, the country. ~ If the diity were taken off flour. New Zealand would be made the dumping jocund for Australian., wheat., He was ilot going to tax one section, of the, community.to protect another. He did not think the Tariff would ever have any permanent effect on the cost of livijog. He could not see his way olear to support the Bill. Mr EEogjan contended that State competition was the only way to regulate prices. The Hon. T. Mackenzie denied the as<sertion that flour would l)e cheaper if the duty were removed from wheat. With reference to trusts, an endeavour should be made to meet them and cripple their influences. If Australia would co-operate to extend concessions, which New Zealand wis prepared to grant,'they could work on a profitable basis; but Australia would not do that. They were not going to allow the importation into the country to the detriment of the pi-oducers here. The protective tariffs were to keep the people producing on their own lands. Mr EJLI favoured municipalities having the power to establish flour mills and bakeries. The debate to adjourned, and the House rose at 11.40.