The Press Monday, November 7, 1921. The Tariff.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17296, 7 November 1921, Page 6

The Press Monday, November 7, 1921. The Tariff.

Borne hard things are being said about the Tariff by the advocates of Protection. Mr C. J. Ward, the president of the Industrial Corporation of New Zealand, which, we understand, represents the manufacturing interests, has told a "Wellington paper that the Tariff schedules and-, resolutions reduced him, to "a complete state of stupefaction." " The words of Ministers of the Crown," ; lie said, "had raised the hope that at "last the manufacturing industries 41 were to have fair play, but promises "made to the ear had been broken in "the letter and spirit." The Govern-j ment, he went on to eay, (had eot up a Department of Industries arid Commerce for tho declared purpose of eni couraging local industries, "but the"Government's policy, as shown in the ■"Tariff, stultified its action in the "establishment of the now Depart- " ment." We have often dealt in the past with tib© claim of the secondary industries for State assistance similar to that given by the Agricultural Department to the pjrimary industries. There is no conclusive reason, in theory, why the State should not duplicate its departmental oare for the primary industries, by setting up a Department which would keep the manufacturers informed of the best and latest methods of doing business- It has always appealed to many people, however, to bo a little comical that the manufacturers should ask for State tuition. Now, however, we find a representative manufacturer confessing that what those for whom he speaks have desired) is a Department which would apply itself to tho application of a policy of tariff Protection. We should like to see the charge which Mr Ward makes against tie Government set out in detail. What promises tha't a stiff Protectionist Tariff would be introduced have been made by the Government? When was it stated, or promised, that the establishment of the Department of Industries and Commerce implied a Protectionist policy? How is' tlhe existence of such a Department inconsistent with the new Tariff? These are questions which we may be aure will not be answered. In the meantime it is already clear-that the people who delire a skyscraper Tariff do not intend to Tem&in inactive, and we advise the

public to pay'attention to the events of the next few weeks. I The Tariff itself is not, of course, tho» w'hde of the Government's fiscal policy-. Statements were made by Ministers during the recess which may be interpreted to menu that anti-dumping, legislation of some kind or other will be introduced. Now, 'here v< no obligation, even in theory, upon the stoutest) opponents m" Protection to oppose ant-i----(lumpini; legislation. Freetrade, Mr .•W|uith said in the >-rnirse or ono ni tho debate.- ur.im f:ac unfortunate find discredit-.! ->:'.i'tt:.:'!:i"dini; of I:uiv>tries Act. is not a pun-iy pacifist man who lt>\- <■■ :■( :;.-o and regards war as a iotil thiim i- mverthel/'Sfc ready, in some circtinistancp- - . to shoulder a rifle, hi) the Freetrader may '.TWhout mis<rivin;i approve o;' interference with freedom ni trade in H-,cein? circumstances. If a country deliberately adonis a. policy aiming a! the eroatio.'j of conditions which are corlain to L'.iflitt a grave and perhaps mortal iiijiiTv upo2i th} economic organisation «><; this country —an inji'."y who?e evil effects cveryon- will be in .igreement —there is no reason why we shc.uid not take steps to protect ourselves. Bui, it is necessary. In such il ease, that Parliament should know o.Motly what it is that is threatened, ar./l should make sure that anv protective measures that are taken will im: lead io results other than (hose actually desired.