MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12629, 17 October 1905, Page 2

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND PROTECTIVE DUTIES.

To the Editor.

Sir, —It was with mingled regret and indignation that I read the report of the discussion in the House of Rrepresentatives upon that part of the Estimates "Department of Agriculture," when a member moved:—" To 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 lest ibecause tho3© memlbe'rs who represented country constituencies must have voted against it, thinking perhaps they were 'benefitting the farmers of th© colony •by doing so. Unfortunately the farmers often return men to represent them who not only are entirely ignorant of what is for the benefit of th© agricultural community, but 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 th© papei-s 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., ooachbuilders, woollen mills, boot factories, cement mills, etc. Something more is wanted, ■and the following telegram from Dunedin on September 22, and published in the evening papers same date, reads: — '" Th© Otago Trades and Labour Council has decided to convene a combined trades meeting for the purpose of protesting against th© (importation cf foreign goods into the colony, with a view to encouraging local manufactures." The above, in plain English, evidently means a determination to get 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 import duties on foreign oats, wheat, flour, potatoes, chaff, and we have a duty of 20 per cent, on eggs, too." Yes, I admit the duties have been imposed, but I do not admit for a moment 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 -weU then object to the imposition of high protective duties on articles which it was pronb&ed to manufacture in the-colony. ThiFabsurdity of imposing protective import duties upon agricultural produce must at one© be apparent to th© veriest tyro m political economy, when the list of our exports is examined. I showed lately that although we have a protective duty of 9d per lOOlbs on wheat, y? t ?UOltia' tioli for wheat in Christchurch was then 7d. per bushel lower tnan the lowest an Australia on the same day Then again, in ordinary seasons, wath potatoes at about £3 per ton it would not pay to import them, even drorn Australia. But now that potato.es are at famine prices, in consequence of ■the failure of the early. crop in the North, and the small stocks held in th© fcoutV.th© import duty on potatoes, amounting at 20 peir cent, to 40s per ton (according to a Wanganui produce merchant) is an unjust tax on the whole population, and will only go to increase the next Seddon Surplus. An article appeared in a Government organ th© other day on th© "Importation of Eggs." The writer showed that, despite the duty of 20 per cent, the value of eggs—liquid and desiccated, imported into the colony from Germany and China during 1904, amounted to £3,552. H© quoted largely from the report of the Government Poultry Expert, from which I will take the following:—" These importations are sold at a lower 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 recommended 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, hut when we recollect that the Government brought this part of th© Agricultural Department into existence solely for the purpose of promoting the export of poultry arid eggs to Africa and London, where they would have to compete with not only Germany and China, hut with the world, it as 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 so little understood as protective duties, and the reason for their imposition; so for 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 manufacturers We exported wool, hides, wheat, gum, etc., ■and it was felt that if we had local industries things might be better all ■round, as 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 imderstood that we must depend principally on the export of agricultural produce, and the farmers could hardly be expected to compete with their produce against the world whilst isbill paying enhanced prices for th© goods they required to purchase. Th© reason the duties were not abolished was that same 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 federated 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 last night to ask for 40 per cent, import duty on agricultural implements. It is strange such a request should com© from agricultural implement makers; lam certain it never originated with them. The farmers of New Zealand have supported the implement makers so well that, although the industry has been entirely unprotected, at has been the most successful, and has

paid higher wages "than any other industry in the colony, so it is no wonder ibhe o-ner trades 'want it to come under their wing and lacoept protection. The Empire and Tariff 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 tfhe 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 repreal of the colonial protective duties agannst Great Britain and her colonies, substituting small duties for revenue purposes only, 'and to increase- the Customs duties against foreign countries. 3. To insist upon the repeal of every colonial labour law which benefits one section of workers at the expense of tihe other sections. 4." To promote such a preferential and (reciprocal tariff agreement between 'Great Britain and all her colonies as will really tend to the unification and consolidation of the Empire.—l am, etc., S. COCHRANE MACKY, Secretary Empire and Tariff Reform League. Auckland, October 14, 1905.