The Daily News. SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. "MADE IN NEW ZEALAND."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 130, 10 September 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 10. "MADE IN NEW ZEALAND."

New Zealand as yet cuts no figure of any size in the great manufacturing world, and the manufactured goods that leave thi9 country for competition in the markets of the world are limited to a few lines. It is impossible that New Zealand can compete with reasonable chance of success with the yreat manufacturing countries for many generations, either in goods for export or an goods for the use of the people. We are, in fact, almost entirely dependent on the other* side of the world for most of the things we need other than raw and there is no indication that this country will enter into the manu- . facture of necessary things mainly ibej cause, even under protection—the sheet- ' anchor of New Zealand.' commercial poli- ! tics —we could not sell locally manufac- ; turedi goods as cheaply as. we can import them. Further, we are very profitably engaged in producing raw materials in ' a very undeveloped country. For the next fifty years or more, New Zealand cannot hope to produce the quantity of raw products of which the country is capable, for the reason that she has insufficient people to do so. The great markets of the world yawn for our raw products, and, splendid as they are in quantity and quality, they are but a drop in the ocean of -the whole. The ideal business for any country is to produce as much raw material as possible, and to use it in home manufacture to the greatest possible extent. That is to say, the country that is self-contained, self-supporting, and which can afford to ibe independent of outside supplies, either of material or manufacture, is the richest country, because such an ability shows that the population is large, progressive and virile. New Zealand is in-

| clined to switch off from the essential—the settlement of the land and its highest cultivation—to coquette with the strange gods of manufacture, but unless New Zealand can see ways of making local manufacture supply daily necessities more cheaply than by importing, the futility of spending great sums on power schemes and the like is obvious. It is better to finish with one job first, and the settlement of the land is the first job to be got out of hand. The j Factories Act Amendment Bill, if it were circulated in Germany, might give our Teutonic cousins the idea that we were vigorous competitors of theirs in the industrial world, and the new rule under which' it will be illegal to omit branding our manufacture, "made in New Zealand," seems almost like an accusation that we flooded other markets with unibranded goods, giving the impression that some other country had made them. We have heard that New Zealand mutton is frequently sold in London as prime English and that New Zealand butter is frequently just "butter" when it gets to the Home market. Except in the case of a few lines, the New Zealand manufacturer would be unwilling to brand his goods, for under the infant conditions of New Zealand manufacture, his goods are necessarily deare¥ than those that are imported. If, by the branding law, the average citizen becomes patriotic enough, at the expense of his pocket, to take only those goods that are "made in New Zealand," the rule will be a good l one. The variety of manufactures in the Dominion is, however, comparatively small, and branding them will not induce manufacturers to open up new lines of industry. There is less need for manufacturers to open up new lines of industry than there is for . the State to open up new areas of country. A farm is of much greater consequence than a factory as far as this country is concerned, not only because the factory has no chance in competition with ten thousand similar factories in the Old World, but because there is still plenty of room for farmers, and no encouragement for factories. The fact that factories languish and farms do not is a very good reason for the concentration of effort on the more payable proposition. Our factories do not cheapen the goods we need. In fact, they generally increase the price for the protection of the struggling manufacturer.

This is an excellent policy, perhaps, for the manufacturer, but not for the consumer. New Zealand pays far too hisrh a price for its daily necessities, and the label "Made in New Zealand" will not effect a decrease. If there were no other way of earning a living in New Zealand except by filling the air with smoke, the ships with manufactured articles find the operatives with* sorrow, it would be a very good idea to cover the country with j smoke stacks. But when the country is merely scratched, when it can grow all the food it requires-, when it could quadruple its output of raw productslf tt enhanced its population and people farms instead of factories, it is a little early in the day to worry about manufactures and "Made in New Zealand." We have protection for many industries—but where arc they? We have millions of acres of uncultivated land. Where are the people? Shall we cultivate the waste land or let it remain idle while we rush around for capital to start manufactures with?. The ans'wer Is seen In every acre of new ground fthat is put to tEe plough', and the product of which goes to swell the bant balance of the aatfoa. ""■-«> ■■>»