MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXII, Issue 42793, 19 October 1905, Page 2

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

To the Editor

Sib, —It was with mingled regret and indignation that I read the report of the discussion in the House of Representatives upon that part of the Estimates “ Department of Agriculture,” when a member movedTo reduce the vote by £1 as an indication that the import duty on potatoes should be removed.”. The motion was lost by 37 to 9. This motion was evidently lost because those members who represented country constituencies must, have voted against it, thinking perhaps they were bene-' fitting the farmers of the colony by doing so. T T n fortunately theJarmers often return men to represent] them, who not only are entirely ignorant of what is for the benefit of the Agricultural community, hut who are very much interested in protected manufactures, erroneously called “Local Industries,” and so long as Protectionists are returned to Parliament we will have this trouble over protection.

Anyone who has carefully read the discussions that have been reported in the newspapers for months past must have noticed the determined effort to obtain protective duties, for either starting new industries or assisting old ones, such as agricultural implement makers, and increased duties for others, viz., coachbuilders, woollen mills, boot factories, cement mills, eto. Something more is wanted, and the following telegram from Dunedin on the 22nd September, and published; in the evening papers same date, reads:—“The Otago Trades and Labour; Council has decided to convene a combined Trades Meeting for the purpose of protesting; against the importation of foreign goods into the colony, with a view, to encouraging local j Thg above, in plain Eng<- j lish, evidently means a determination to get j prohibitive duties' (imposed to encourage local industries at the expense of the export; producers, who would get'no benefit in return. I hear a Protectionist member exclaiming : “ We are benefitting you in return. Have we not imposed protective im-. port duties on foreign oats, wheat, flour,; potatoes, chaff, and we have a duty of 20i pe» cent, on eggs too.” Yes, I admit the duties have been imposed, but I do not admit for a ipoment that they were imposed for the benefit of the farmers, but only to make them believe the duties would benefit them, so that the farmers could not very well then object to the imposition of high protective duties on articles which it was proposed to; manufacture in the colony.» The absurdity of imposing protective import duties upon agricultural produce must at once be apparent to the veriest tyro in political economy, when the list of our exports is examined. I showed; lately that although we I have a protective duty of 9d per lOOlbs on wheat, yet the quotation for wheat in Christchurch was then 7d per bushel lower than the lowest in Australia on the same day. Then again, in ordinary seasons, with potatoes at about £3 per ton, it would not pay |to import them, even from Australia. But now that potatoes are at famine prices, in consequenee of the failure of the early crop in the north, and the small stocks held in the south, the import duty on potatoes, amounting at 20 per cent, to 40s per ton (according to a Wanganui produce merchant), is an unjust tax on the whole population, and will only go to in•rease the next Seddon surplus. An article appeared in a Government organ the other day on the“ Importation of Eggs.” The writer showel that, despite the duty of 20 per cent., the value of eggs—liquid and dessicated —imported into the colony from Germany and China during 1904, amounted to £3,552. He quoted largely from the report of the Government Poultry Expert, from which I will quote the following“ These importations are sold at a higher rate than locally preserved eggs, and are bought chiefly by bakers and confectioners, who are thus independent of local supplies. This state of affairs will, in my opinion,-become more serious every year, and unless an absolutely prohibitive duty be imposed, as reoommemded in my memo, dated October 15th, 1904, the progress of our poultry, industry will receive a very serious check.” To the casual observer, this expert's fears might possibly seem to be well grounded, but when we recollect that the Government brought this part of the Agricultural Department into existence, solely for the purpose of promoting the export of poultry and eggs to Africa and London, where they would haye to compete with not only Germany and China but with the world, it is certain we have nothing to fear from any imports of eggs, no matter from what part of the world they come, even if the duty was entirely abolished. There is hardly any subject bo little understood as Protective Duties, and the reason for . their imposition. So far the special benefit of those who are advocating increased duties, which would only benefit a few manufacturers and their employees, I will give it briefly :—For years after the foundation of the Colony we |had no manufactures. We exported wool, hides, wheat, etc., and it was felt that if we had local industries things might bo better all round, las some of the colonists had been brought up in factories and did not take kindly to the rough country life. The first thing necessary in commencing manufactures was machinery, and to induce capitalists to import and erect the necessary machinery it was necessary for the state to give such a guarantee that in a given time the capitalist would not only have received a fair interest for his capital, but the return of the original capital invested. This was done by the imposition of protective duties. But it was never intended that the operatives working at these protected industries should receive more than their brothers they left behind on the farms, or that protective duties should be retained for the mutual benefit of employers and employees for all time. It was understood that we must depend principally on the export of agricultural produce, and the fanners could hardly be expected to compete with their produce against the world whilst still paying enhanced prices for the goods they required to purchase. The reason the duties were not abolished was that some long-headed individuals managed to get the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act made law, by which not only the employees in the protected industries, but other workers in the towns, have formed Unions, and these Unions have fedora'od as a powerful political organisation, so that they have practically been governing the country. I notice that a deputation of fourteen representatives of the Trades and Labour Councils of Otago and Canterbury waited on members of Parliament the other night to ask for 40 per cent, import duty on agricultural implements. It is strange such a request should come from agricultural implement makers. I am certain it never originated there. The fanners of New Zealand have supported the implement makers so well that although the industry has been ontirely unprotected, it has been the most successful, and has paid higher wages than any other industry in the colony, so it is no wonder the other trades want it to come under their wing and accept protection. The Empire and Traffic Reform League only want fair play for all workers, and that they are against the dumping of foreign goods into the colony is proved by the following from the objects of the League:—l. To unite the farmers and settlers of all the British self-governing colonies. 2. To secure the repeal of the Colonial protective duties against Great Britain and her colonies, substituting small duties for revenue purposes only, and to Jincrease the Customs duties against foreign countries'. 3. To insist upon the repeal of every gqlonial labour lav which benefits one pection qf workers at the expense of the other J

sections. 4. To promote such a Preferential and Reciorocal Tariff agreement, between Great Britain and all her colonies as will really tend to the unification and consolidation of the Empire. I am, etc., S. COCHEANE MaCKT, Secretary, Empire and Tariff Reform League. Auckland, 14th October, 1905.