Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Farmers’ Troubles

Costs and the Tariff Protection Not Wholly to Blame THE primary industries of New Zealand were being ruined by the tribute money they had to pay to sustain the secondary industries. The worst thing a farmer could do was to buy locally-made goods for, by doing so, he paid nothing into the coffers of the State, but yet paid the same price. , In this way Captain F. Colbeck elaborated to the Economic Society last evening thi? agriculturalists’ ease for free trade.

THE superior position of secondary industries on the agricultural condition of the country had been accompanied by a protection, intended to be temporary, to enable these industries to establish, but the contract had never been kept. The result was that to protect the manufacturer the farmer had to pay more for the thing he had to have.

The lecturer instanced the position of the American farmer who, on account of tariffs, could not export when he produced a surplus. The position there was akin to that in New Zea-

land, where it scarcely paid to keep certain land under cultivation. The only relief for American farmers, so it had been said, was for 17 per cent, of the farmers to be ruined and driven off the land. The agricultural 30 per cent, of the population there received a much smaller proportion of the national income. Australia was in a similar plight, and the New Zealand farmer barely made ends meet by enslaving his wife and children. Too small a proportion of the national income went to the farmer and too large a proportion was taken to support secondary industry. If the farmer could get money to buy goods at world parity, all would be well, but protection prevented

If the farmer could get back to world’s parity, marginal lands would be brought back into cultivation and our export trade would be enormously increased, so that secondary industry would benefit from increased purchasing power. Buy in Home Markets The farmers wanted only that all sections of the community should start off scratch and that they should be able to buy in the markets they sold in. The highest protected industries in New Zealand paid the lowest wages of all, in proof of which the lecturer instanced the tailoring trades and the boot manufacturers. In the succeeding discussion. Dr. E. P. Neale, prefacing his question by substantially agreeing with the lecturer, asked whether the farmers would be willing to forego their own favourable protective considerations and he reminded him of the capital which would have to be sacrificed if protection was wholly withdrawn. Nor was the period of depression marked by any increased tariff. The ‘Poor Fool” on the Land Under protection, returned Captain Colbeck, the farmer paid everyone's costs. “The only poor fool who can’t pass it on is the poor fool who has taken up land. No one is fool enough to pay taxation when he can't pass it on. “The worst thing a farmer can do,” continued the lecturer, “is to buy locally-made goods. For he pays an equal price, and all goes to the producer, whereas if he buys a British article part of his money goes to pay a tax to tlie State. The more we produce in New Zealand the worse off we are.” Is the Tariff to Blame? Dr. H. Belshaw spoke to two points: (1) Was the tariff responsible for the position? (2) If the tariff were removed, would it improve the farmers’ lot?

He stated that if the tariff were responsible it would work itself out in the long run in a reduction of land values. Wages, he stated, had increased 50 per cent., while export prices had gone up 80 per cent. He thought it was playing the tariff too much to say that it was wholly responsible. On the second point he referred to the capital sunk in secondary industry. The best the farmer could do would be to work against an Increase and for a gradual reduction of the tariff with due notice to all parties. Mr. A. G. Lunn struck an optimistic note. Six months hence the farmer would be all smiles, he said. But tariffs should be imposed only for a time, and then gradually tapered away.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19270922.2.106

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 156, 22 September 1927, Page 10

Word Count
712

Farmers’ Troubles Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 156, 22 September 1927, Page 10

Farmers’ Troubles Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 156, 22 September 1927, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert