AGITATION OR REASON?

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1927, Page 8

AGITATION OR REASON?

When first faced with a demand for dumping duty upon Australian flour the Acting-Prime Minister was inclined to resist. Intensified Southern agitation has since compelled him to yield. Even taking his own statement as the basis for argument, there was more reason in his earlier attitude than in his subsequent surrender. Importations were essential to meet d shortage, and the demand of millers and farmers that such imports should be penalised was a request which , was wholly selfish. They wished the market., to be kept as bare as possible so that there might be no possibility of competition when their own product was ready. To insure against any risk of reduction they did not hesitate to ask that consumers should be denied any benefit from Australian importations. Confident of their own strength, they abused the Minister of Agriculture, the ActingPrime Minister, and the Government, and waxed virtuously indignant because the Government which, thoy claimed, was "supposed to protect the farmers' interests" showed a disposition also to protect the consumers.

It was not only demanded that the Government should impose a dumping duty, but that the Government should itself obtain the evidence to support such an imposition. The onus of producing evidence of dumping, it was claimed, was not upon the farmers and millers who desired the added protection. -The Acting-Prime Minister has surrendered to this agitation, and naturally those who are to be penalised are asking questions. . They wish to know who is to benefit and to what extent wheatgrowers have been advanced as the stalking-horse for the higher protection. What guarantee is there that they will receive the benefit, and that, with higher-priced flour but the old duty on wheat, at least some of the advantage will not accrue to the millers? Again, if the wheatgrowers do obtain part of the return from higher protection, what justification is there for this from the public's point of'view? The decision of Parliament may be interpreted as this: that it is desirable for New Zealand to be self-supporting in the provision of whealt and flour if tho cost is not too high. The tariff represents Parliament's opinion of what that cost should be. Strong and sufficient reasons are required if that cost is to be raised. On the present showing there appears to be more political pressure than reason at the back of the decision.