The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1927. A TARIFF WHICH DOES NOT BUILD

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 149, 14 September 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1927. A TARIFF WHICH DOES NOT BUILD

OUTSTANDING among the features of the new tariff submitted to the House of Representatives by the Minister of Customs yesterday is the weighty increase in preference accorded to goods of British manufacture. This is accomplished, not by reducing the duty on these goods, but by raising—and in some instances very substantially—the duty on foreign goods. Valuable as the change may prove in regard to Empire trade, however, it is not the point that most vitally concerns New Zealand as a young country thirsting for secondary industries to provide employment for that population which is surplus to the workers in its primary industries, and to absorb the immigrants who are so sorely needed for building up man-power. What the Dominion requires is a tariff wall of sufficient height not only to enable the secondary industries already established to compete with imported goods, from whatever source ; but to induce British manufacturers to realise it to be worth their while to cease exporting their goods here—and establish factories here to manufacture them. A Government with strength and vision, determined to evolve .a splendid industrial community as a means of countering the fluctuating returns of the primary industries, would realise this necessity and aim at its accomplishment. But the reply is made to the representatives of local manufacturers and those who urge the building up of the secondary industries that “a high protective tariff is not in the best interests of the Dominion, and that industries are more likely to be conducted on a more satisfactory basis if a certain measure of competition is allowed to take place.” When this “certain measure of competition” protects the consumer in regard to industries already established, well and good—though it is debatable whether local competition is not sufficient for this purpose—but when it prevents the establishment of new industries in a country so sadly needing them, it is ultimately disastrous. The immediate result of a tariff framed to build new industries might result in some anomalies, or even hardships, but a community which is not prepared to suffer these for the sake of future prosperity, in the knowledge that all the competition necessary will later be provided locally by the very means which establish the industry, is blind to its potentialities, and deficient in its courage and its faith in being able to overcome difficulties. There seems no hope of a long-sighted protective policy being formulated. It will be admitted that in reducing its Customs revenue by 180,000 the Government is doing something toward responding to the urgent demand for a reduction in the cost of living; that its provision for cheaper household linen and teacups will ease the burden of the housewife; that it is doing something for the secondary industries by admitting essential machinery free of duty, and for the primary, industries by increasing the duty on imported timber, and by giving the stifled poultry-farmer duty-free maize. But these things, undoubtedly useful as they are for the present, are trifles compared to the neglected need of New Zealand for an adequate tariff behind which it can build a great industrialism for its future. A MYSTERIOUS DISMISSAL A lAIN I of tyranny marks the dismissal of the resident engineer for the borough of Mount Albert. This ugly feature alone gives to an extraordinary episode in local government rather more importance and a wider range of public interest than that ordinarily given to the petty affairs of parochial politicians. It looks as though a comparatively obscure local body has achieved a notorious prominence by the practice of injustice. It was decided at a special meeting of the Mount Albert Borough Council last evening to dispense with the services of its engineer, Mr. W. H. Cook, on the general ground that the administration of his department had not been satisfactory. There were only two dissentients, but their opposition to the abrupt and mysterious dismissal of a public servant was vigorous enough to make up for lack of numerical support. Of course, they failed in their plea for justice. Their logic could not break down the obduracy of the majority. But the minority at least had the satisfaction of knowing that it had reason and the principles of fair-minded men on its side. It is impossible to argue that the council overstepped the 1 units of its jurisdiction in summarily dismissing its engineer. Every employer has an inalienable right to dismiss any worker whose service may not give satisfaction. Even if Mr. Cook deserved dismissal, the reasons for it should have been made known to all the council. No one outside a group of councillors in the Mount Albert district knows anything at all. Thus the merit of the counciTs tyrannical action does not call for special consideration by the ratepayers and the public. It is the manner of the man s dismissal that will arouse keen indignation wherever justice is understood and appreciated. Appeals and protests to the council were given scant attention. As one of the minority put it very mildly: “The whole procedure had been most unjust, seeing that the engineer had been condemned unheard.” Still, the majority remained obstinate in refusal to give specific reasons for its action, and, in mockery of justice, aped the part of “strong, silent men.” What is the real reason for Mr. Cook’s dismissal ? The ratepayers have a right to know, and should demand full knowledge. If the cause be due to sectarianism (as has been hinted vagnely), the effect should be remedied without a moment’s delay. There is no place in local government for that kind of political tyranny.