FARMING IMPLEMENTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 258, 24 July 1908, Page 3

FARMING IMPLEMENTS.

REPLY TO MR. HARDY, M.P. STATE.MENT BY CHIUSTCHURCH MANUFACTURERS. ■ (bt telegraph—press association.) Christchurch, July 23. In the Financial Debato Mr. C. A. C. Hardy, M.P., is reported by tho Press Association as having said that tliero was a ring in tho agricultural implements trade in virtue of which farmers-had to pay 50 per cent, more for implements than farmers in Australia. This was brought about by tho tariff passed by a Government which claimed to be the friend of the farmer. A representative of "Truth," who saw several of the leading agricultural implement manufacturers in this city this morning with regard to tho above quoted statement from Mr. Hardy's speech in Parliament yesterday, ascertained that they were very much irritated that such a statement- should have been made, and that such an undeserved criticism should havo been passed on their business. • From Messrs. G. T. Booth (of Messrs. Booth, M'Donald,.and Company), J. Duncan (of Messrs. P. and D. Duncan), and F. Cooper (of Messrs. Cooper and Duncan), tho reporter obtained the following facts in support of their contention that tho New Zealand farmer has on the average to pay less than the Australian farmer. The gentlemen mentioned gave information as to prices of New ZeaJand and Australian manufactured farm implements, taking for the purpose of comparison some of the leading lines. They recognised that it was not possible to make a' close detailed comparison, because most farm implements vary in manufacture to suit differing conditions. For instance, Australian ploughs are almost all made to plough shallow furrow on light land, and do not requiroto bo so Heavy or so expensively fitted as standard New Zealand ploughs. The closest comparison possible gave the following results:—

Two-furrow ploughs, Victoria, £10 Hk; Now South Wales, £12; New Zealand, £9 10s. Three-furrow ploughs: Victoria, £19 10s.; New Zealand, £18 10s.' Tine harrows, 4 leaf: Victoria, £7; New Zealand, £6 10s. Disc harrows, Sft.: New South Wales, £17; New Zealand, £15 10s. Four horse yokes: Victoria, £4; Now Zealand, £2 15s. Six horse yokes: Victoria, £6; Now Zealand, £4 2s. 6d. Grain and fertiliser drills, 13 hoe: Victoria, £35; Now Zealand, £30. These comparisons, tho representatives of the trade contended, bore out their statement that tho prices for New Zealand manufactured implements are, if anything, lower than tho prices of Australian manufactured implements. As to Mr. Hardy's statement that tho exorbitant prices charged to tho New Zealand farmer were due to the Customs tariff, they pointed out that iu New Zealand thero aro no duties on farm implements, and never havo been, notwithstanding that certain of the raw materials are dutiable. On the other hand, in Australia there aTe heavy protective duties covering the implements detailed in the comparison given above. Another phase of the subjeot dealt with l was the wages paid by New Zealand and Australian manufacturers. Reference was made to the decision of Mr. Justice Higgins ot tho Commonwealth Arbitration Court in the harvester caso in which he awarded either 7s. or 7s. 6d. per day as tho minimum wage. In consequence. of this decision Australian farm implement manufactories had closeddown, having been unable to pay the rates mentioned, but had reopened when' Mr. Jus-' tice decision was held to be unconstitutional. Tlie.v aro now presumably paying lower nites. Tho lowest rate paid in Christchurch implement manufactories is Bs. per day, and thero is a constant tendency to! increase- that rate. ' Generally speaking, tho representatives of tho trade stated when the rotail prices of New Zealand-mado implements were compared with the prices ruling. in Great Britain- and in British colonies 1 , 'it showed 'that' tho Now Zealand farmer buys his locallymade machinery" remarkably' cheaply, especially When the high cost of manufacture and the-standard of quality ,of the implements were taken into consideration.