NEW ZEALAND'S PART

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 23, 27 January 1923, Page 11

NEW ZEALAND'S PART

STAGNANT INDUSTRIES

TO-TBI EDITOR. Sir.—l thank your correspondent "Year Book" for his criticism of my report to the Central Progress League, on "Stagnant Industries." Any criticism which will help our coantry is to be encouraged.I have carefully checked over my figures and find with one exception that they are a fair and accurate comparison; in fact, the only fair comparison available. I am anxious for a higher standard of living for all, and seeno reason, providing we make better use of our people and our natural resources, why we should not have a much higher standard than we have to-day. To this end, I believe^ the Creator intended that we should make much better use of the wonderful resources provided in our country. But there is no miraculous flow of wealth ready to be divided amongst the people. It must first be created by labour. Yet we employ so few' creating that wealth and so many handling and exchanging it. Seventeen per cent, are producingjpractically the whole of the .country's wealth from the soil and from industries. The numbers are out of proportion, and only by increasing the ratio of producers will we help to solve the unemployment difficulty and make'it possible to have a higher standard of living and a more contented people. I, therefore, endeavoured to show the numbers employed in actual production only, and here quote the 1921 "Year Book," page 381, in com-i-parison with Victoria, which states :— 1900-1 1910-tL 1919-20 All industriee 46,847 56,234 64,95 L Deduct figures included in some years not in others 1,761 1,598 Comparative figures common to all years 46,847-54,473 63,353 Victoria .....-.., 66,529 111,948 136,522 Increase in 20 years: Viotoria 69,-993 app. 105 p.c. New Zealand ... 18404 app. 40 p.o. These are "productive" employees, and are the only comparative figures given by the Statistician and apparently the only basis of comparison available to him. It is certainly true that in 1920, 7938 were employed in administration and distribution, in addition to the figures I quoted, but the railways, shipping, [banks, business, in fact the balance of the community are employed in administration^ distribution, and exchange in one way or another, leaving only 17 per cent, of actual producers. The percentage of producers, primary and secondary, in Great Britain, Ireland, and New Zealand is approximately as follows:— Great Britain 37j per cent., Ireland , ' 32 per, cent. | New Zealand 17 per cent. If we could only attain that standard of producers against non-producers as obtains in Great Britain, we would almost double our annual income without little addition to our expenditure and no extra exertion by the workers. Your correspondent "Year Book" states: "The actual number employed in 1920, including administration and distribution, was 72,889, an increase on 1910-11 of 20,416." This wquld leave 52,473 only employed in 1910-11, whereas there were 54,473 employed on produc-' tive works alone in that year. The Statistician says the figures for employees on administration and distribution were not asked for nor furnished prior to 1919. Will "Year Book" state how ho arrives at the 20,416 increase since 1910-11 ? I can find no basis for it. Is it purely, imaginary?

"Year Book" is correct in stating that in calculating the production per head of population I gave the total of the "principal" indtiatries. This was a mistake, which I 'regret. The total of £68,502,000 should have been £69,780,----000; "all. industries." The following shows the loss or gain in specific industries between the years 1910-21-1920-21:— New Zealand. Victoria. Woollen Mills Gain 1 Gain 4 Engineering and implement works ... „• 1 „ 194 Publishing, bookbinding, etc. ... „ 6 -.„ 17 Furniture and cab- ■ inetmaking „ 18 „ 90 Clothing, tailoring, dressmaking .:. Loss. 118 „ 360 Boots and shoes... „ 10* „ 110 Sawmilling, sash, & door factories ... „ 204. „ 328 Tanning, fellmongery, & wool- ■ scouring , 9 Loss 2 Victoria. N.Z. Gain 1103 26 Loss 2 341 *Not reliable, as some repair shops may have been included in 1910 and not- in 1920. It will be seen that in the industries mentioned, we gained 26 new factories and lost 341 others, while Victoria gained 1103 and only lost 2 in the ten years. It will probably be found that New Zealand returns do not) give a correct comparison in all cases, some showing repair shops as factories in 1910, which are not shown in 1920, as is the case with boot and shoes factories. But, allowing for that, stagnation is the only word which truly states the position, j Take the output of specific industries. ! Comparative figures of seven principal industries in Victoria and New Zealand, years 1910-11 to 1919-20:— Increase in Total Value Industry. of Products. | ! ■ ' ■ Victoria. N.Z. £ £. , Tanning, fellmongery, & wool--scouring 7,052,902 2,905,228 Percentage inc. 382 p.c. 142 p.c. Boots and shoes 4,118,331 823,563 219 p.c. 132 p.o. Engineering, im-plement-making- 2,406,461 499,082 79 p.c. 66 p.o. Printing, bookbinding, etc. ... 2,596,694 1,261,436 122 p.c. 91 p.c. Woollen Mills ... 1,502,742 765,552 317 p.c. 200 p.c. Saivmilling, etc. 1,445,044 544,982 114 p.c. 20 p.c. Clothing, tailoring, ' dressmaking, eto 15,898,539 1,996,985 334 p.c. 98 p.c. 34,996,713 8,798,828

Increase per head population £22 18s Ocl £7 5s 7d

No one will seriously believe that the Australian worker is a better worker than our own, or more intelligent. Our natural resources are much superior. The only advantage Victoria has over our industrialist is the difference in the incidence of taxation. It is logical, therefore, to assume that this is the primary cause of Victoria's advance in industries over our own.

The meat works and milk product .really belong to primary industries. In these we show a very gratifying increase far exceeding tha,t of Victoria, but in the real secondary industries we are honelesslv behind.

Surely" no patriot can rest satisfied with -bliis state of affairs, whatever the cause. I believe that our incidence/ of taxation—which I intend to deal with at a later date —whereby we tax industry and not wealth is the primary cause. There vnny he other*, «ueh a» thone sujUtested "by "Year Book," and it is

the duty of every man who loves our country and our people to try and find out the causes and remove them. But criticism alone from behind a nom-de-phime will not help. I would, therefore, ask "Year Book" to come oat into the open and let us see what interest he serves, if any, in trying to justify an incidence of taxation which strangles our industrial enterprise and places such a burden of taxation on the workers, besides putting up the cost of living while I much wealth goes tax free.—l am., etc., G. MITCHELL, Hon. Secretary, Central Progress League.