The Wheat Industry

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7285, 12 October 1933, Page 10

The Wheat Industry

GROWERS’ CASE FOR RETENTION OF DUTIES Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 10. One of tho most keenly discussed questions concerning protection in New Zealand camo before tho Tariff Commission this morning, when the wheat growers of Canterbury presented a case for tho rctontion of the sliding sea.lo of duties. Eight witnesses camo prepared with voluminous evidence. Before evidence was given Mr. A. F. Wright, advocate for those interested in tho retention of the sliding scaie, called attention to the fact that last year’s wheat crop was phenomenally heavy—tho second largest yield per acre .in the country’s history. “It is regrettable,” said Mr. AVright, “that the position has not been put before the public in the true light. In some cases, no doubt, the people have been acting on wrong information. On others there has been misrepresentation. North Island people have not made themselves acquainted with tho tion and with what the wheat industry means, not only to Canterbury, but to tho whole of New Zealand. If the duties are tampered with the industry will languish and die, and onco dead it will be almost impossible to re-estab-lish it.” Professor Murphy: You all assume it will die. That is not borne out by figures in the Year Book. Mr. William Machin, who led the wheat growers’ case, said that there were more than 6000 farmers growing wheat, and more than 5000 grew less than 100 acres. The wages paid to labour in tho wheat industry and in other industries materially ' affected were £821,226, and tho total capital involved in tho industry nearly £13,000,000. He replied to certain statements made to tho Commission in Auckland in opposition to the sliding scale duties, arguing that tho sliding scale had established tho price of wheat, flour and bread at reasonable levels, protecting tho grower, miller and consumer against tlie danger of violent fluctuations in price. He contended that bread prices in New Zealand compared favourably with prices in other countries, taking .into account the wage level in those countries. It was not true that tho stabilisation of bread prices had retarded the fall in the cost of living. It was also incorrect that tho duties had kept up tho price of pig food. Actually pigs were not fed on milling wheat, and pig feed wheat products were unprotected and cheap in New Zealand. Fowl wheat had been cheaper last year than the cost at tho works. It could have been imported if there had been no duty. In any case the poultry industry enjoyed heavy tariff' protection. He refuted au Auckland statement before tho Commission that the existing scale of duties had prevented a fall in' Canterbury laud values to an economic level. .Land values bad actually fallen considerably. The land cost of a bushel of wheat at 4s 2d was lOd and if land fell a further 25 per cent, tho reduction in tho cost of production of wheat would be only 2|d a bushel. Jn Auckland it had also been contended that the duties led to unduly large areas going into wheat production. “Auckland varies its argument to suit tho occasion,” said Mr. Machin. “Three years ago its complaint was that New Zealand wheatgrowers did not every year grow sufficient wheat for tho needs of the Dominion, and the variations in annual yield are uncontrollable. ’ ’ To Mr. J. B. Gow witness said that to return tho farmers a, reasonable profit tho price of wheat would have to be at least -is 8d a bushel. Mr. C. H. Hewlett, manager of the Canterbury Seed Company, urged that the eliding scale should bo increased. He was sure that if New Zealand did not produce its own. wheat it would not always bo a dumping ground for the surplus production of other countries. Iu some years it would have to pay the fullest price, Especially as wheat control boards were being established in wheat producing countries. Mr. C. E. Orbell spoke of the value of the wheat industry in absorbing surplus labour.