FARMERS OPPOSE TARIFFS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 669, 22 May 1929, Page 6

FARMERS OPPOSE TARIFFS

Hostility to Protection TAXATION ON NECESSITIES OFFICERS of the Farmers’ Union consider they have answered the protective tariff advocacy of the Auckland Manufacturers’ Association, and, in a discussion upon this vital issue at the Farmers’ Conference, now being held in Auckland, they stated that they have established a clear ease for a reduction in protective duties in New Zealand.

THE delegates were enthusiastically in support of the removal of duties from the necessities, and the following remit, submitted by Mr. R. H. Feisst, received a large following: “RecogJfeing the imperative need for reducing costs of production and the close bearing the present high protective Customs taxation has to such costs, this conference calls upon the Government immediately to reduce such taxation upon the necessities of life and production.” Speaking on tariffs, generally, Mr. R. H. Feisst, said that in spite of periodical increases, industries which had been assisted by tariff protection were in a worse position than ever. The manufacturers and the Farmers’ Union had held conferences recently upon the question, and the manufacturers had been publishing extensive propaganda upon the subject. Mr. Feisst referred to last Saturday’s Sun, and said that in that issue had been set out the case which the manufacturers had set before the farmers. ANSWER TO PROTECTION “Unfortunately, we are not able to undertake propaganda as they have done,” Mr. Feisst went on, “and these conferences provide the only opportunities we have of airing our views. “But do not think for one moment that there are no answers to these questions which they have put up. I hope that before we conclude we will be able to publish the answers distinctly and wholly in "Farming First,” so you will see for yourselves. “I am satisfied —and I can speak for my colleagues also—that we answered their case fully and satisfactorily; even with satisfaction to themselves. Captain Colbeck: Too satisfactorily. Mr. Feisst: Well, from the expression of opinion of the leader of the other side, I gather that we have changed his opinion, but not his vote. “We ask the Government straight out for a reduction in the protective tariff." Mr. Cookson seconded. THE STUMBLING BLOCK Mr. Barter said if the conference spent the whole of its time on protective tariff it would not be time, wasted. (Hear! Hear!). If they carried the day in this question the rest would be comparatively plain sailing. So far as the meetings with the manufacturers were .concerned, he did not believe the manufacturers appre ciated the farmers’ point of view. "This is a straight-out fight,” he said. “There is no question of common ground. We cannot take full pages in newspapers, but we have a big chance to work our influence outback. “You can bring it up till they look upon you as they now look upon me —as a bit of a crank.” Mr. McCormack said the farmers would never make much progress till the protective tariffs were reduced. Many people did not believe in protection, but they were too conserva-, tive to advocate its reduction. Captain H. M. Rushworth said one fallacy which had, been advanced lately was that protective tariffs cheapened the price of the goods, and the case of agricultural implements was quoted. If prices came down the tariff would come down, but in New Zealand the experience was that the tax was going up and up annually. “We are now faced with this only weapon,” he went on, “that we have to say that price for price and quality for quality, it is more patriotic to buy imported goods because we are then helping the revenue.” “THIS CURSE—PROTECTION!” Mr. Judd said many of the people did 'not understand the significance of the facts. Mr. Dawson asked for the abolition of “this curse, protection,’’ and quoted the case of boots being sold at an exorbitantly high price on account of the duty.

Mr. A. E. Robinson said the expres-

• sion “sending money out of the country” was a dishonest one. An analysis ' of the position showed this to be entirely fallacious, when based upon the j “added value” argument. In cases of ! this kind, however, the public did not : get the benefit of the so-called added. ! ] value. I Mr. McCready was not optimistic ; and said the man who would get the j farmer most would get the farmers’ j vote. • 1 Mr. Feisst, in reply, said this system iof protection was the root of the vicious circle operating against the general interest. So far as wheat and bread were concerned. Mr. Feisst pointed out that in 1910 the price of wheat was 6s a bushel and flour £l2 10s a ton. The bread equivalent of the flour worked out —on a 3id loaf basis —at £2O a ton. Today wheat was still 6s a bushel; flour was £lB 10s a ton, and the bread equivalent, worked out at £4O a ton. The remit was carried unanimously. PRIMARY PRODUCE DUTIES Duties upon primary produce were reviewed in this remit: ‘That this conference of farmers, representing all districts in Auckland Province, calls upon the Government to remove duties on butter, meat, cheese, and similar agricultural produce, such duties being not only unnecessary, but liable to create wrong impressions both within and without the Dominion. The president, Mr. A. A. Ross, wished to make it clear that the farmers did not want duties to protect their own goods. The farmers were, to a certain extent, to blame, because certain commodities coming in were asked for protection to help the primary producer. The remit was carried. < At the instigation of Waikato the conference opposed duties or restrictions on the importations of the necessities of life and production, and considered any assistance necessary to local industries should he in the form of subsidies. , COMMUNITY BURDEN Mr. Feisst considered that if any industry required assistance it was the duty of the community as a whole to provide it, and not only a few least able to bear the burden. This was the difference between protection and subsidies. “We believe subsidies are bad,” he added, “but that protection is infinitely worse.” Captain Colbeck upheld the principle of subsidies as against protection, and said he would apply this to the wheat-growers in the South. Under subsidies the cost would be smaller, because the amount of stuff which was imported would not l»e subject to tax as well as the subsidised local industry. The cost of living—which, alter all, was the cost of production—had been raised in recent years by 33 1-3 per cent, in the form of protective taxation. “This is the cause of all our troubles,” he said. “If you get this ; right, everything else will come right.” [ The remit was carried.