The Press Thursday, May 26, 1921. Industries and Protection.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17155, 26 May 1921, Page 6

The Press Thursday, May 26, 1921. Industries and Protection.

' The meeting of the Industrial Aaso- - ciation'on Tuesday sight, at which the Hon. Mr jLee waa entertained, -was not '' „ distinguishable from' J a Protectionist 1 '.,\ rally, altbough Mr J. Ar Frostick, who N3 local Protection;ists, "waa at some pains to avoid ap.pearing as "too ardent advocate of ex- *'"• 'treme Protection which he really is. i * *< Ala inipor|aiit thing to ,be done/' he '■ r "i eaid, i'was'to stabilise the industries— '* there was a lot pf difference between f, 4<c aajj protection." There *; may be" all %he difference in the world, \ for/sIT anyone but' Mr Frostick knows, " » ettexit of the difference would ( / more clear if Mr Frostick f '" had^ex^lalhxed' What he means by \- How it differs from /' Protection!.'' One may suspect that the I J Jt only *njiat -difference is in the spoiling, '' 'for tlje plea jor stabilisation was imme- . -> \ by. the speaker into Vj s 0 from the Mins Mr* Frostick con--cliaded hie apeecb/by «aking*for a Board * of Scientific Industrial Research, remarking that A'the industrialists, in " '' asking for such a Board, were not ' . "asking any more than: the agricultur"jsts. reoeited, for they had their " Boardoop, Agriculturef p, Agriculture. u This is a ' : renewal of'a request upon whioh we thave written.on several occasions in " the' past. ■'•There was no serious theoretical objections to the establishment of such a Board. One may feel, cf v course, thabjt cannot be necessary if tho j uaptaina, of industry are really capable 'men. Indeed, to urge that T they require jthe assistance of a State Board to advise them how to manage their businesses is very like a reflection .upon their ability. The leaders of industry have so often proclaimed, and so firmly believe—and, in, oar view, quite rightly—that private enterprise knows its; business better than a State Bureau ' does that'we cannot help wondering what sort of a,Board they really do desire. There is another point in Mr Fros- " tick's Bpeech to which attention must be drawn, because it is very necessary, at* a time when Protectionist activity is very great, that the public should clear flunking* Mr Frostick t ' refenjea J» Canada and its large ex. '• , port trade,"and asked: "Why should '' ''not New Zealand, T having quite as '* good a country, aspire to do as weflP' 1 We hope there will never be a limit to • New Zealand's 'aspirations, but if it is - suggested—as it seems ta be—that New Zealand cair* achieve what Canada has \ " jachieved,,there are one,or two points ,7~. to be considered. The first relates

to the map. Canada marches with the largest white State m the world, America. It is separated from Europe by only one-sixth of the steaming time that divides New Zealand from the great markets, and it is as near to the Eastern markets as is industrial Australia. This is a point which requires to be stressed, since the geographical factor is not only a handicap upon New Zealand as an exporter of manufactured goods, but is also a protection to the local producer. In his great new work, "Modern Democracies," an advance copy of which has just reached v.s from the publishers, Viscount Bryce notes this point in his reference to the Protective tariff in this country. He says :—- "It need hardly be snidMhat New Zealand manufacturers already enjoyed a 'natural Protection' in the high cost of importing £oods from Britain thousands of miles away, and that .they woukl have gained more by the increase in the ; r home market which larger immigration would have caused than they were gaining by duties which raised the cost of living 3 . to the whole community, including their own workmen."

If this natural Protection —the high cost of hauling goods through 12,000 miles of sea —is insufficient to protect Now Zealand manufacturers agaimt foreign manufacturers, it is exceedingly difficult to feel hopeful thnt_ New Zealand's manufacturers can compete with the foreigner in the foreigner's own backyard. To feel otherwise would be equivalent to believing that a horse who can just make a ,dead-he.at of it with another when conceded three stone, can win if ho has to' give the other horse three stone. The local Protectionists must pay more .attention to such points as we hate raised in this article if they wish the public to give frank and friendly consideration to their requests..