TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 107, 6 May 1926, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

A conference of representatives of the Commercial Branch of the Railway Department is roported as favouring road transport by tho Dcpar lent in localities where it was likely to bo a sound economic proposition. No particulars are given, so comment upon the recommendation can be made only in general terms. Obviously no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, an^ to say that the Department should not go upon the roads at all would be as foolish as to advocate a Government monopoly of road transport. In certain localities it would be of advantage to the railways and to the public if there were an auxiliary motor service, enabling passengers and goods to be booked through on a road and rail journey. Such an auxiliary service could be either under Railway Department management or privately owned, with an agreement for co-operation. The Department now has private contracts for cartage, and the system may be extended. A trial of this method would enable tho Department to assess the value of a co-ordinated road service, and would prevent the costly mistakes which might arise from a hasty entry upon the roads.

Indulgent parents may plead the higher cost of living as an excuse for mistaken generosity to their children— "One cannot get anything for a penny nowadays"—but, when full allowance is made for this, it is undoubted that many youngsters have more money than is good for them. The discussion by Te Aro school parents shows that juvenile extravagance is causing concern to the more thoughtful. Of course, one may say if the parents like to be foolish let them be foolish, but the sorry part of the business is that the child suffer* more than the indulgent father or mother. The latter may lose the money, but the child loses, or never acquire*, the habit of thrift and wise spending. The youngster who is never instructed to save in pence finds it difficult in after-life to^ make the best use of pounds. * # * Australia has the dumping-duty weapon to bo wielded 'in defence of a local industry. It now realises that Canada has one too, and is being applied in the case of butter from the Commonwealth entering the greater Dominion. A cablegram from Vancouver to-day intimates that protests are being made from that city to the Government at Ottawa against the new duty of 6 cents, or 3d per lb, a dumping duty, on Australian butter entering Canada. Worst of all, it is to be made retroactive as from Ist January. No mention is made of New Zealand butter sent into Canada. The position is that Australian consumers, by' means of artificial methods of price-fixing (irrespective of the export value or cost of production plus handling and distributive costs and a reasonable margin of profit), are paying a wholesale price of over 205s per cwt for butter that i« worth 150s for export. We do not know what price this butter is realising in Canada, but obviously it is loss than Australians are paying for it. The British Government has given an idea of value by fixing the minimum price, during the strike, at 171s. New Zealand is a heavy shipper to Canada, but here the domestic price has been based on the price it would realiso for export. The argument in this case is fair enough as far as it goes. What consumers overseas aro prepared to pay for the articlo (Icsb cost of shipping Bad other charges)

determines the local value of the product. The Government at Ottawa states that the dumping duty on Australian butter is justified because it is being sold at a higher price in its country of origin than in Canada. That is correct. The quantity of Australian butter affected is 1,400,0001b, and to make tho duty of 6 cents per lb collectable on that is going to hurt the importers —possibly Australian exporters. New Zealand should not be affected, because tho price here has been based as nearly as practicable on the export value. That is not so in Australia. The case seoms clearly one of dumping, and so Ottawa regards it.

An interesting experiment in land development is proposed by the Minister c' Lands. One' or two experienced farmers are to bo asked to take over partly deteriorated farms, and, with the aid of Government advances, to bring the lands back to a profitable state. If they succeed the farmers will have the right to purchase or lease the holdings, and the Government will profit by the experience of the occupiers. This is a sound application of tho old saying that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. New Zealand has thousands of able farmers, and their co-operation in solving tho problem of deteriorated lands should be of the utmost value. The deterioration problem may bo tackled in two ways: (1) by Government investigation and experiment; (2) by private effort. The latter method has the merit of being made under practical working conditions. The farmer applies his experience to mako the land profitable, but because ho is working for himself he keeps a careful watch on costs. It is this knowledge of costs that the Government desires. Wo know that deteriorated lands may be brought back to production at a price; but we wish to discover the cheapest and most effective way of doing the job.