WHEAT AND FLOUR PROBLEM

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 233, 2 November 1929, Page 6

WHEAT AND FLOUR PROBLEM

Per Press Association.

LENGTHY DEBATE ON THE REPORT. &MENDMENTS DEFEATED BY 50 TQ 20. •

WELLINGTON, La.st night. The debate 011 the report of the feelect committee 011 wheat was continued in tlie House of Representatives . .this afternbon, Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo) stated tht clieap food.stufls .were essential to any country. Tbey could not atford to put a duty 011 wheat in New Zealand, because it ineant tiiat the prices of flour ivent up. He agreed that tliere was need for a searehing inquiry into miliing because there was 110 need for fifty inills here. The fi*ee importation or grain had not killed grain-growing in penmark. Wlxeat duties wero bolstering np S000 wlieat-growers to tlie detriment of 1,500,000 people. Wheat had formerly been grown in tlie North Island, but had been given up because it paid better to grow other tbings. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Riccarton) said that if South Tsland farmers followed the example of North Eland farmers and grew grass instead of wlieat the rple of the Xortli Tsland would soon starving for bread. If the wheat industry were abolislied a direct blow would be struck at the Dominion. Instead of over £2.000,000 heing kepfc in the Dominion each year it would liave to he sent abroad. A DECENT RETURN. Mr H. E. Holland (Buller) pointed out that if the amendment were carried it did not follow that the Government would bring in an amendment of the Customs Ac-t. The oue result would be preventing tlie printing of the evjdence, which would not then be at the disposal of members of Parliament. What he would like to see would be a businesslike systematised plan under which growens were guaranteed a decent return for the wheat tbey produced. and to liim a honus to bring the return for operations np to a satisfactorv figure seemed to be the eorrect metliod to deal ,witb the situation. He favoured State ownership of the miliing industry and also advocated an organisecl system of bread deliverv. He was satisfied tliat^ sufficient wheat could he grown in New Zealand to meet tliis country' s requirements. The wheat industry was entitled to the same proteetion as was afforded any other natural industry in Kew Zealand. The growers of the Dominion should not he left open to the evils of dumping from other rountries. Mr W. J. Polson (Stratford) said it had to he realised- that there was & helt of coimtry in the South Island more suitable for wheat-growing than anything else, and it was desirable that .wheat should he grown there. However, it was essential that it sliould be grown at a price which would not impose a burden on anyone else. The evidence lieard hy the committee showed that the wheatgrower's share in the price paid by eonsumers was quite fair. There was a great difference in price 'as between tlie Xorth and South Island. This was due largely to the fact 'that the wliole system of distribution wa's out of gear. He was glad the committee had recommended that bran aud pollard sliould come in free, as that could he a help to the farmer. A body of experts should explore tliorouglilv tlie whole system of distribution and bring down a report. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) said it must ho abundantly clear that Kew Zealand would have to depend upon overseas production if it were not 'for wheat duties. If the wheatgrowers wero left without proteetion, poultry farming would be killed and the difficuities of bacon production would be increased. He tliought it a pity tlie committee had not accepted Mr McCombs' suggestioit that the Government should take over the control of miliing and the purchase of wheat. THE SLIDING SCALE. Mr D. Jones (mid-Canterhury) said he was surprised to hear Mr Bodkin suggest Government control, which. was against tlie United Party's policv.The outstanding fact of the committee's report was that the sliding scale of duties was introduced two years ago and had stood the test of time and was still the soundest system. The committee could find but a small proportion of the actual cost of bread. If the ordinary householder would pay casli and carry his own loaf home he could escape the payment of the equivalent of the wheat duty. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) approved of the seheme outlined by KTr McCombs. He said that there was an element of unfairness in the present system. The country should have to hear the cost of supporting the inoustry. ( Mr W. H, Field (Otaki) said it wonid Be a serious thing for Kew Zealand if the wheat industry disappeared. IIe regretted that it had not been deeided to give more help to the poultry industry. Mr H. R. Jenkins (Parnell) cited support for the principle of free trade within the Empire as ground for the cpposition to the wheat duties. The amendment was defeated hy 50 votes t'o 20, and the report was adopted. The following was the division list : — For the Amendment (20). Barnard McDougall Blaek McKeen Broadfoot McDonald Fletcher Martin Harris Mason Hogan Munns Jenkins Itushworth Jordan Semple Langstone Smith Lye . Wright Against the Amendment (50). Ansell McCombs Armstrong MacMillan Atmore Macpherson Bitchener Makitanara Bodkin Massey Carr Munro Chapman Murdoeh Clinkard Nash Coates Ngata Cobhe " O'Brien De la Perelle Parry Dielde # Polson Field Ransom Forhes Samuel Fraser Savage Hall ■' Stallworthy Hamilton Stewart Hawke Sullivan Healey Taverner Holland, H. Veitch Holland; H. E. Waite Howard Wilford Jones " Wilkinson Eyle Williams Linklater Young