The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1930 MORE WORK FOR NEW ZEALANDERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 930, 25 March 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1930 MORE WORK FOR NEW ZEALANDERS

THERE is neither conceit nor vain boasting in making a claim that since the advent of this journal three years ago a mass of conservative opinion against the fiscal encouragement of New Zealand’s manufacturing industries has not only been broken up, but has had its elements reunited in a demand for more Protection and development of factory work. Administrators of the highest rank, politicians in different parties (though Labour still is cold about it) and newspapers whose policy formerly was a nebulous, almost an indifferent, interest in the value of local manufactures and the need of rapid expansion have become enthusiastic advocates of the New Zealand worker’s cause. This change of view and service is all to the good and therefore appreciable, but it is right and proper and nothing more than reasonable fairness that we should note the keen activity in the imitation that is the sineerest form of flattery. Even the old school of irreconcilable exponents of Free Trade as. an ideal economic law which should be obeyed as unalterable and infallible is beginning to soften its obduracy and modify its theories. Under the stress of circumstances in a changed world it is prepared at least to accept the doctrine of Fair Trade which involves a policy somewhat different from a meek willingness to allow a depressed country to become a dumping-ground for the surplus goods of other countries which have not hesitated to protect themselves against competition. In Great Britain, for example, several devotees of the pure doctrine of the Manchester School are now confessing with some reluctance that a theory is not everything. They see the disturbing effects of Free Trade in isolated practice, and admit, in the words of “The Spectator,” that “the Free Trader who refuses to bow down before his doctrine as though it were a god will acknowledge that a violent disturbance of industry in a large district, or perhaps, in a whole county, may be worth preventing even though a price has to be paid.” And thus the steadily increasing advocacy of Safeguarding which, of course, is merely Protection shyly masquerading in soft language. The Dominions buried Cobdenism long ago and will not be persuaded to raise it again. And they are farther away from Ihe polities of the Manchester School than they are from Manchuria. There may he, of course, scope for argument as to whether or. not the Dominions have gone far enough in the practice of fiscal Protection, but they certainly have not yet passed the outer boundary of reasonableness in respect of developing their comparatively new industries. New Zealand, in particular, has been more prominent in the neglect of its manufacturing industries than in their promotion. Successive bucolic administrations have exhausted the best of their ability on promoting agricultural industries until even now many politicians and their supporters can think of little else than land settlement at a preposterous cost as the only remedy for unemployment and trade depression. They actually believe that breaking-in land at a cost of £2O and acre or the purchase and subdivision of cultivated farms at a much higher price is more economical and a shorter way to prosperity than through the development of existing factory industries and the promotion of industrial enterprise. Members of the Auckland Rotary Club yesterday heard from an expert industrialist with a full knowledge of skilled labour some plain talk about the need of expanding local industries instead of croaking about bad times and waiting for a political lead “round the corner.” Mr. J. Fletcher is to be commended for bearding the commercial lions in their den and out-roaring them on the most vital questions in the life of the community. As he said with argument beyond dispute there should be less of the vague demand for expensive land settlement which, at its best, could only employ one man in every seven needing work, and more concentration on effort at establishing “better factories, better machinery, better amenities for employees, and easier finance.” Something of that sort was guaranteed by the United Government, but most of its promises have been blown away like gossamer in a gale. If only “Service before Self” were made a real thing, instead of a beautiful motto, how quickly (to paraphrase Mr. Fletcher) industry would emerge from its present parlous state. It is to be hoped that the captains of commerce and industry will give heed to a blunt industrialist’s practical advice.