PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 February 1921, Page 7

PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM URGED. DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES. An Address on tariff reform was given by Mr. J. A. Frostiek, of Christchurch, at the Industrial Corporation Conference at Auckland last week. In advocating a protective tariff for New Zealand, Mr. Frostiek said that the assumption so often indulged in was that new countries should be content to provide food and raw materials at the lowest possible prices in order that the English manufacturers and merchants might use such raw materials, and send them back to the country of origin as manufactured articles at the highest possible value. Could they find any record in history where this policy had enabled a young country to build up a strong and vigorous nation? Canada and Australia, as examples, were at one time just as much agricultural or primary producing countries as New Zealand was to-day, and probably more so, but these two great countries determined to feed their own people with their own productions, and to manufacture the foods they needed for their own use.

New Zealand, through its Parliament, was now within a few short weeks of having to determine this most vital question as to whether this was to be built on a policy of self-reliance, or whether it should hand itself over to the merchant and middle-man who would search the world over that he might buy in the cheapest market and make the greatest profit possible in the sale of the goods he purchases. Let them not forget that the nation was its people and the profitable employment of its people was the nation’s first care. On the question of revenue it could be demonstrated, beyond the possibility of any doubt, that no country (this country in particular) would suffer a loss of revenue by the adoption of ,a tariff on the lines of the present customs tariff of Australia. That country caused searching investigations to be made, lasting over two years, by a, Royal Commission, in which expert and independent reports were made on some* when? ,near 400 different classes of manufactures, etc., each being separately dealt with, and forming the subject of a separate report. PROVISION FOR FOOD PRODUCTION, The result was the Australian Tariff, came into operation in March, 1920, an intelligent study of which would show that there was no doubt whatever as to what Australia intended doing. She was determined to build a nation, being a phrt of the British Empire, and she was also determined to develop every phase of life necessary to a modern nation. Due attention had been given to the protection of food, and food production, generally, thus asesuring to primary producers conditions which would render it possible through industry and science to make primary production attractive and a profitable source of employment to that portion of the people for whom it was best fitted. The Australian tariff demonstrated that, while food was the first essential, it was only one phase of national life. Australia had, in effect, said: “Possessing abundant supplies of raw material, we are determined to use it by our own people to supply our own needs; we will not continue a pblicy by which our raw .ma- ! terial is disposed of at its lowest possible commercial value and re-imported at its highest possible value, as manufactured articles, but will manufacture these goods ourselves, which, from a revenue point of view, is best for the country, because all the added value is retained and is available for taxation, and also for the development of 1 the country.” APPLICABLE TO NEW ZEALAND. In proof that the Australian policy was sound and applicable to New Zealand, he had selected a list of 22 different classes of articles in daily use in New Zealand, the value for which, under pre-war conditions and at pre-war price, was declared at £15,746,000, on which the Government received in duty £2,601,155. Careful analysis showed that these industries, if carried on in New Zealand, to meet the demands of the population (as in 1911) would provide for the living of 417,000 persons, instead of the 194,000 then dependent on the industry, thereby adding 223.000 additional taxpayers—- ’ direct and indirect—taxes .being always computed per head of population. A : carefully-drawn balance-sheet and profit and loss account, covering possible developments in the industries referred, to, showed that after providing for the full amount of the revenue arising out of these particular lines of imports, as shown, the £2,600,000 paid as duty would be recovered, and a credit balance shown, on manufacturing in our own country, of £4,629,000, computed on the basis of the present customs tariff and taxation. This four and a-half millions per annum would thus be available for developing the country and expanding the industries, without recourse to foreign loans. CONFERENCE FAVORS AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM. • The conference was supposed to represent the interests of more than half the entire population of this country, whose material interests were depending upon the nation’s industrial activity and he urged that they would fail in their duty to the people an dto the Government if they did not raise their voice in this critical period of the country’s development in the direction of offering their best service to the authorities in the direction of tariff reform. It appeared to him that New Zealand could, not do better than adopt the Australian tariff, with such modifications as might be found necessary on particular lines. “One thing we shall most certainly have to guard against,” said Mr. Frostiek, “and that is giving the special facilities through the tariff to Australia, which are denied by Australia to New Zealand.” Mr. Frostiek moved: “That, in the opinion of this conference the Government should accept the present Australian tariff as a basis of any such, alterations in our tariff as in the opinion of the Government the conditions peculiar to New Zealand may warrant.” Mr. W. J. Jenkins (Christchurch) seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.