Untitled

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16848, 31 May 1920, Page 6

On Friday last, we Yiotod that Sir Joseph "Ward had confidently predicted a deficit in tho national accounts for the year 1910-20, and that, as the Opposition papers regard him as tho greatest of financiers and ail infallible one, the fact that there was a surplus must be rather awkward for them. The local Opposition paper says that it has ' sporting offer to make: it will "axp'ain" this strange error of its idol if we, in! our turn, will explain the rise in tho expenditure I We have nothing to explain. We regard the rise in the expenditure as unjustified, and largely duo to Sir Joseph Ward. Therefore this "sporting offer" is a wholly incomprehensible thing. Equally incomprehensible is our contemporary's attempt to show that there was no surplus, since the rise in the expenditure was greater than the surplus. This is beyond us. Tt would bo just as sensible to contend that there was no surplus in the last year of the Ward regime, because in that year the rise in expenditure was £907,172 and the surplus was £720,793.

The chairman of tho Summit Road Association, in a letter • in this issue, draws attention to tho desirableness of constructing a walking track parallel to but some little distance from che present Summit road, and he puts forward the idea of such a track being made in the early part of next summer by a "vigorous band of volunteers,'' who would form a holiday eam-jj, on the hills, and work under . expert supervision. The suggestion has distinct possibilities. The Communists of - Bolshevist Russia have, as we described recently, instituted "Saturdaying" as a practice, devoting themselves on their leisure day to voluntary work for the public benefit, and before now a British community has turned out in a body and made a road, or done some other public work, instead of leaning on the Government. Tho enterprise referred to .by Mr Machin would he a useful outlet for the surplus energies of the "diggers," who form no inconsiderable proportion of the population of the city and district, and teams from the large secondary schools for boys might also bo enlisted in tho service. There need be no' fear that such voluntary labour would deprive anybody of work that otherwise would ho paid for, since it is obvious, from the chairman's letter, that tho Association has no funds to spare for the purpose. i

Apparently the New Zealand Cnstoms Department is Dot singular in its' habit of assessing tho duty on imported goods, not oh the invoiced cost but on the price ruling for them in tho country of origin at dato of shipment—when, as in these days of continually rising prices the latter is the higher of the two. The case in which this occurred, to which Mr L. M. Isitt, M.P., recently drew Mr Massey's attention, involved an amount of only some £10, but if it had been £1000 the Customs Department would presumably have followed the same policy. Tho Federal Customs, it seems, adopt the same course. A Sydney tailor, giving evidence before the Necessary Commodities' Commission some days ago, faid that lately he received some suiting materials from Bradford which were invoiced to him at 12s per yard. "But because on the day of export the market value at the port of export was 24s 2d, the Australian Customs charged him duty on 24s 9d, first loading up 10 per cent., and afterwards 30 per cent. On his invoice of £203 lis lid he paid duty amounting to £137 175." The action of the Cus-j toms, therefore, added very largely to j tho ianded cost of tho goods, and this • added cost was necessarily passed on to J tho. purchasers, who had to pay for what was nothing less than profiteering by the Government. Yet another De-! partment, of the same Government, as J is the case in New Zealand, is out to prevent profiteering by traders!

• In the opinion of the Minister of. Agriculture, one of the needs of the i day is a comprehensive organisation; scheme covering the whole fruit-growing industry of the Dominion, having for its object the ready disposal of the whole of our fruit crop at prices reasonablo ■ nlike for grower and consumer. In | that opinion Mr Nosworthy shares the views of a very largo number of people, t particularly among consumers, who' know little of the prices received by tho growers of, say, apples, but know a' good deal about the retail charges. Doctors are always urging people to eat more fresh fruit, but as one dele-

pate to the Fruitgrowers' Conference last -week remarked, as long as the public have to pny fictitious p'ices their appetite for fruit would not be stimulated. We are well aware that tho difference between tho price paid to the grower and the price paid by the consumer is not all profit to the retailor —something, in some instances a good deal, lies to be allowed for unsaleable fruit. But ijie margin strikes one <is being on the average somewhat too generous—for the retailer. If he lowered his prices he would recoup himself by his increased sales. Unless this is done —and the present season of heavy crops affords a rood opportunity for stnrting a reform in priccs—the retailers may find they have to meet the competition of a growers' organisation which would operate directly between orchard and table, with considerable advantage to the consumer's pocket and tho health of his children.