PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3299, 18 August 1911, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

DUTIES. ON FOOD.

ABOLITION BILL INTRODUCED.

I.PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. 3 When the House met this afternoon Mr Hogg (Masterton) 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 duties on the necessaries of life. The present Bill was not confined to flour, 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 (Hutt) advocated the appointment of a Royal Commission to get expert opinion on the great problem of food supply. He supported the Mr. Luke (Wellington Suburbs) favored the suggestion for a commission, but could not support the Bill. Mr. Buxton (Geraldine) said if the Bill were carried a lot of farmers must go out of the producing business altogether. Mr. Okey (Taranaki) agreed with the Bill. Farmers did not, he said, require a duty on butter. He also denied the existence of a butter ring;. Mr. Poole (Auckland West) and Mr. McLaren (Wellington East) supported the Bill, the debate on which was interrupted by the dinner adjournment.

WHAT 3S THE SOLUT3ON? PLEA FOR MORE CONSIDERATION The House resumed the discussion cn the Abolition of Duties on Food Bill at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Stallworthy (Kaipara) opposed the abolition of the duty on flour, but said lie would support the second reading c.f the Bill, as he- considered the import duty on butter was not necessary. ‘Mr J. C. Thompson (Wallace) said that if the, duty- were taken off flour he was sure the wheat industry would be endangered, and if it wore not ruined it would be crippled. He advocated the increased prcdiictivit-' cf the land and the settlement cf 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 a reciprocal treaty with Australia should receive special attention. Mr. Wright (Wellington South) supported the Bill as a protest against the continual increase in the price of foodstuffs. %• Mr. Laurenson (Lyttelton) maintained that it was not the cost of living that had increased. It was the standard that had increased, and one of the factors of the increase was the higher education. For a number of years the country had experienced phenomenal prosperity, and iff was increased land values which were responsible for the present high cost of food. He pleaded for more consideration on. the part of members to measures dealing with- the feed supply of the people cf the country Mr. Fisher (Wellington Central) contended that the solution of the. problem would not be found until a Tariff Beard were set up. He admitted that the standard of living liad increased,, but the cost had also increased materially. Mr. Russell (Avon) said he did not anticipate that- any practical result would follow the second reading, because legislation of this character 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 bn 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, and the only way to deal . satisfactorily with the question was to limit profit. If the Bill became law to-morrow exactly the- same state of affairs would be found to exist under the Bill as existed now. The Bill was; hot the solution of the question. The way in which butter was being Sold for Is and retailed for Is Gd 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, and the Government was expected to deal with this huge matter in a week or two. From the point of view of the actual dost of living the matter had become the, most serious one of the day. The landowner was reaping the benefit by piling up the- cost of l iving. This a "-Hied more to land values in cities than in the country, and if the duty 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 to protect another, and he did not think a tariff would ever have any permanent effect on the cost of Hiring. He could not see; his way clear to support the Bill. Mr Hogan (Wanganui) contended that State competition: was tine only way to regulate prices.. The Hon. T. Mackenzie denied the assertion that flour would he cheaper if the duty were removed from wheat. With reference to the trusts,, he said endeavor should be, made to meet them and cripple their influences. If Australia- would co-operate and extend the concessions, New Zealand was prepared to grant they could work on.,a: profitable basis, but Australia wtould not do that. They were not going to allow importation into the country to the detriment •of producers here. 1 Protective tariffs were,, to keep the -people producing on their own lands. Mr. Ell (Christchurch South) favoured municipalities having the power to establish' flour mills and bakeries.. House rose at ,11.40 p.m. The debate was adjourned and the