The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1933. Dominion Manufactures

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21020, 23 November 1933, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1933. Dominion Manufactures

In his address at the annual meeting of the Canterbury Manufacturers' Association last night the president, Mr F. L. Hutchinson, made certain claims for manufacturing industries and certain retorts against their supposed enemies which it is well worth while to examine. To take the second first, Mr Hutchinson spoke of " those who " would destroy our industries, or, "as an alternative, force us to pay " wages low enough to compete, " without duty protection, with " overseas countries " aided by low standards of living, low wages, mass production, and export surpluses to dump. It must be said that the manufacturer has few such enemies, if any at all; and no good purpose is served by fastening upon utterances here and there which appear to suggest that any section or interest in the Dominion wishes to shut down secondary industries or to expose them to unmitigated and unfair competition. But the export producers of a debtor country, upon whom the burden of serving the external Sebt primarily lies, know very well, and cannot help knowing, that their costs are increased by tariffs and that the burden is so much the heavier; and they cannot be blamed if, as a body, they ask to be assured that this handicap is no more than is fair, no more than is necessary to give a fair fighting chance to industries so organised as to deserve it. They ask to be assured that tariffs do not, to their injury, shelter industries which have no reasonable place in the national economy or industries which by inefficiency of one sort or another forfeit their right to it. These are quite proper requests, from every point of view; and the manufacturers will do better to answer them than to contest the more extreme views of individuals. As for the positive claims which Mr Hutchinson makes, they are in general form easy to accept. He says that the welfare of the people must be considered before that of any particular class; that an advanced and prosperous nation must have a diversity of occupations for its inhabitants; that there must be a correct balance between town and country; that urban industrial development is impossible unless manufacturers are sure of having the local market for their products: and that, as .nobody will invest in manufacturing without a sure outlet for production, a national policy of safeguarding is necessary. Every word of this is true; but every word of it is subject to Mr Hutchinson's further remark that " we must " adopt sound, economic principles, "knowing that only by following " sound principles will this or any " country ever become prosperous. Clause by clause the primary producers will agree, since none knows better than they the value of a .vigorous domestic market. But they are fully entitled to insist that the manufacturing industry which wants the local market should be assisted to win and hold it as an efficient fighter, not as a soft and sluggish invalid. They need to know that, if investors in manufacturing must be safeguarded, the safeguarding will be judicious, measured, and subject to review. The reason is, of course, that the primary producers themselves cannot by any means get the kind of security which is demanded for those whom they are called upon to assist; and if they, bearing their risks, are to guarantee others against any, they want to be fully informed about insurance rates and insux*ance benefits. Given such information, the farmers are the manufacturers' best friends and i ready supporters.