THE TARIFF ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 96, 20 October 1926, Page 14

THE TARIFF ISSUE

(To the Editor.)

-Sir, —The Wellington Industrial Association is to be congratulated on its recent pronouncements on the question of secondary industries and tariffs, and it is to be hoped that employers' associations and trade union officials will give some thought to tho matter between now and the next session of Par : liament in view of the proposed tariff revision. In the economic readjustment now taking place the world over some of olir stereotyped ideas about Free Trade and Protection are to get a severe handling, and the whole question will be looked at from an entirely new point of view. In New Zealand we have to look at it from tho angles of (1) immigration, (2) development of secondary industries, (3) recurring unemployment, and (4) "jfeountry of destination of our primary products. New Zealand must have immigrants if the country Is to develop at all. Naturally, Britain is the main source of supply, arid .we have to face the fact that the majority of emigrants from Britain in the future are to be those trained in the manufacturing industries. Britain has given so many agricultural workers to Canada that she ■will be forced to make agricultural conditions attractive enough to .keep the workers she has got —and that is •what she is doing. Therefore, New Zealand has to prepare to provide facilities for the rapid development of her secondary industries if she is to ?ursue a virile immigration policy. hen it must be remembered that the secondary industries can only be developed with a rapid increase in population, and that can only be done by immigration. The development of our secondary industries and the problem of unemployment are closely interwoven. During the post-war years we have suffered • severely from unemployment, and this is very bad for the country as a whole from every'point of view. Doles and aemands-for maintenance can never solve the problem. The trouble is that we have accepted too freely the dictum that the primary- producers are. tho backbone of the country. A backbone that can only prosper when Europe suffers disaster, and breaks down when Europe begins to got back to normal, is not a safe basis to build our national prosperity on. Gambling in Tooley street, speculation at Smithfield, or a deluge of produce into Britain from Denmark or Eussia can mean disaster for New Zealand under present conditions. With a rapid increase in population through immigration, the development and encouragement of our seconiary industries by means of P™tection, and a resolve on the part of New Zealanders to support New Zealandmade goods, wo can gradually become less and less dependent on "a bad liarvest in Europe" for our prosperity. The primary industries can only offer leasonal employment to thousands of men, and this shows callous disregard for these workers between seasons. there is also a limit to big schemes (hat can be organised by the Public * Works Department, and once that limit |s reached there will be a huge number of men looking for work in other lirections. To reduce unemployment Mew Zealand has to look round for Ipinething more stable than her primary -industries, and she can only set-to ' " to improve and increase her secondary ' 'industries by means of the tariff. In any tariff revision we must take tnto consideration preference to the tountry of destination of our primary products, not from any sentimental peason but for a purely business reason. We can rest assured that when Britain .an get better or cheaper produce than purs she will drop New Zealand. British capital has more at stake in the Argentine than in New Zealand, and that fact may be a very hard one for this country some day. But, in the cir- ' eumstances existing, preference must be given to Britain and the biggest in- ;. sreases in the tariff loaded against those countries which have built high tariff walls against us. The importations of past years from countries that never give us a thought are a standing jv. monument to our thoughtless stupidity. '■'. No local manufacturer would urge an excessively high tariff wall against the country: of destination of our primary produce unless under exceptional circumstances. New Zealand is passing through a : phase similar to that experienced by the United States of fifty years ago. There, the manufacturers had a terrible struggle to secure protection by means Df the tariff wall. When this protec■tion was secured America's prosperity "was assured, and there is no other country offering such a high standard of living to the masses. There is seldom a. case from our trades unions coming before the Arbitration Court but the ». workers' assessors compare American •< wage scales and conditions with those _ Df New Zealand; very seldom are Bnt- ""■ ish conditions mentioned, and there is % reason. Wo who seek protection for the sec.ndary industries are looking ahead. We know that the old cry of indirect taxation will be raised, but to those Who want to dodge this indirect taxation we say, "Buy New Zealand-made goods"—give active support to local :„-.- Industry, not lip service. AYe are ' anxious to develop our secondary lnlustries so that we can offer our immigrants a chance to make good, provide ■r, other work for the casual workers that seem necessary in the primary indusf. • tries, -nnd build up the best market for ■<" our farmers—the local market. It v -- :-ii.t a'question of Protection v. Free '■■- Trade. It is a matter of self-preserva-tion.-I am, etc.,

(To the Editor.)

..■-.Sir,—The current controversy upon, the subject of tariff protection may be Buramarised to date as follows: —(1) Bequests have been made to the Government for increased tariff protection in" certain industries. (2) The Industrial Association and/or the Wellington Manufacturers' Association has been carrying on a campaign to stimulate the protectionist idea, even to the extent of erecting hoardings, to inculcate incorrect views. (3) Mr. Weston, realising that the general wcllbcing of. the country during tho trying period of lowering value standards which is ahead •of us will best, be served by industrial peace, said so. In a reasoned address he gave his view of the factors which. operate in Now Zealand, and concluded that tho introduction of further tariff increases would .be harmful to our national development and dangerous to our secondary industries themselves. He concluded: "Our destiny for a long time to come is to be a great primary producer." (4) Tho Wellington Industrial Association then stated that this conclusion of Mr. Weston's "begged the question." The association, however, did not stato what the question Was. It then charged Mr.l Weston with not having analysed the position and possibilities of one of. our industries, ignoring the fact that he did analyse the position in regard to the woollen Industry. It further stated: "The counsel of dead-slow ahead" in secondary Industries is a counsel of despair. (It is of interest to note that Mr. Weston Idid not advocate "dead-slow ahead," ]but pointed out that a tariff increase was a source of real danger to established secondary industries.) The association: also claimed "that tariffs have passed .... into the realm of applied science." (o) My first letter appeared in "The Post" of 7th September, wherein I supported a previously published letter from Mr. Winder, whep

I'remarked that "the question of our tariff policy should not be permitted to resolve itself into manufacturer versus importer. Tho question should surely be viewed from a national viewpoint, and from that only." (0) In my next letter I asked the Industrial Association to enunciate the principles of the tarff as an applied science, to which it was replied: "The best evidence that tariffs have passed into the realms of applied science is the tariffs themselves." (,7) Tho association having disapproved of a general discussion, I sought to remove it from the general to the particular, and submitted four questions for answer directed to find out the industries to be protected, the amount of tariff increase to bo granted, the factors to be considered in arriving at the increases, and the duration of the tariff. The answer to these questions was' that Mr. Weston had spoken first. It is not clear what this had to do with it, and this obvious avoidance of submitting for public discussion tho association's proposals indicates the little faith the association has that thees can stand investigation. (8) The- association now states that the tariff increase proposals will be submitted in due course. Until these proposals are submitted, therefore, it is quite quixotic to ask that they be subjected to scientific analysis. But little things like this do not trouble the association. It will gaily go on charging people with not bowling on the wicket before they have put up the stumps. The foregoing clearly shows how the association has avoided discussion, preferring to deprecate its opponents rather than the opponents' arguments. I have nothing to say concerning the association's innuendo coupling Mr. Winder and myself with "patriotic importing interests," after my previous pronouncement that the matter should bo viewed from a national viewpoint. Such tactics carry their own condemnation. The latest communication of tho association asks: "Does not the Winder-Jenkins pronouncement in general terms against all protection carry with it the implication that the Americans, the Germans, the French, etc., not to mention the Australians, are (actively or passively) imbeciles." It is obvious that Mr. Winder and myself have scored heavily at the expense of the association, and .also that the correspondence reveals that the association knows little of the tariff problem. I did not, however, think that the. association would have felt its position so keenly as to be conscious of inbecility on its own part or on the part of those who. share its views. Neither Mr. Winder nor, myself would imply such things concerning those who differ from us, and especially so with such a weak opponent as we find opposed to us in the present controversy.—l am, etc., HUGH JENKINS.