TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 92, 15 October 1927, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

In its new scale of wheat and flour duties the Government has done something more than afford a substantial protection. It has standardised the price of flour at about £18 10s a ton—£l7 Australian price with added duty which rises jf the price falls and falls if the price rises, and £,1 10a average freight and other charges. The Minister of Customs states: ';It is confidently anticipated that the proposed duties will not necessitate any increase in the present price of bread in the main centres of the North Island." What small comfort may be gleaned from this assurance is offset by the equally certain fact that there is little possibility of a reduced price. If New Zealand has a lean harvest we cannot augment our supplies with Australian flour at a landed cost less than £,18 10s; if Australia has a good harvest we reap no benefit. The cards are stacked against the consumer. But more objectoinable than the measure of protection is the form which it takes. The price of an essential foodstuff is practically fixed, so that the consumer can hope for no share in any reduction made possible by, say, reduced labour charges or improved cultivation methods. "When industry, and the farming industry most of lill, is complaining of the high cost of production (due in part to high cost of living), the Government places its seal upon a scheme which must operate against any possible reduction. The Government has acted unwisely from the economic viewpoint; but it'has erred also in political sense. To satisfy the wheatgrowers and flour-millers it has accepted a most dangerous precedent. Other industries will claim similar benefits. Indeed a claim was made a few days ago on behalf of growers of oats. It was rejected, and producers of oats must be satisfied with a plain old-fashioned heavy duty; but if the new sliding scale appears more attractive they and others will soon demand it.

Support for a petrol tax, with a proviso, is offered by the Wairarapa Farmers' Union. The proviso is that a definite part of the tax revenue (onefourth is proposed) shall be given to county councils for the development and maintenance of district roads. Pos■sibly the Prime Minister has some such idea in mind in his scheme for shifting the burden of road maintenance from ratepayers to motorists. He has mentioned particularly the burden upon country rates. The. aim could, of course, be achieved in other ways by allocating a greater part of the cost to the Main Highways Board, for example. But if the motoring tax is to be heavier, there must certainly be a more equitable distribution of the benefits. The burden rests now upon all roadmaking authorities; but only the counties and smaller boroughs have yet secured any relief. In the towns as well as in the country the roading expense has risen tremendously with the motor traffic. Except for such a voluntary tax as the Hutt roaa fee, there has been nothing to balance this expense beyond the heavy traffic fees and drivers' licenses. It is time that the voice of the cities was heard in this matter. There is nothing at all equitable in taxing motors that run on city roads and spending all the money outside the cities. That may satisfy the motorists who rely upon the ratepayers to provide good roads in the cities, but it will not satisfy ratepayers much longer. By constant repetition of the phrase "wealthy towns" some people have persuaded themselves that the boroughs, need no assistance; but in truth the boroughs do need it. Even where rates have not risen greatly the burden of road maintenance is proved by the smaller proportion of rate revenue available for other services. In Wellington, for example, footpaths have been so neglected that the repairs cannot be met out of revenue. By all means let the motorist help to pay for the district road and relieve the farmer; but let it be remembered, too, that

the rates 4 add 2s 6d to 5s a week (sometimes more) to the housing cost of working-class suburban dwellers in Wellington.

Industry and production have been much discussed here recently. In Parliament, the discussion has taken the form principally of a demand for further protection—not for the secondary industries alone, but for the primary producers also. To this demand the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs have been compelled to reply in some instances that the industries must take' steps for their own protection by improved organisation. Addressing the Employers' Federation, Mr. Shailer Weston has given somewhat similar advice. He has pointed to the result of the industry of dairy farmers, and has strongly advocated that co-operation between labour, capital, and management by which alone our industrial future may be assured. It is the same message which is conveyed in a striking article by Sir Lynden Maeassey which is published in to-day's issue of "The Post." Sir Lynden, who is an authority on industrial affairs, examines the position : Great Britain as disclosed in the latest production and trade statistics, and he asks how Britain can face keen competition by rivals with lower production costs. He finds the answer in America, where high real wages can be paid and yet business can be extended, because of the high standard of production. It is probable that the yvriter is less favourable to Britain than some other authorities who have been gratified by the renewed vigour and enterprise of the great industries. But that does not detract from the force of his lesson. If we here wish to regain our old prosperity we also must grasp the essential fact—that " tariffs and such-like rostrums, though often helpful, will not of themselves make a nation prosperous. The prosperity must be earned by the union of initiative, enterprise, and. industry, with labour, capital, and management working together.

"Wairarapa farmers may be congratulated upon having read aright the lessons of recent events and applied them sensibly in their rejection of political action on party lines. The Farmers' Union is a strong organisation, capable of exerting a useful influence upon national lifej but if it becomes political it must introduce dividing and weakening factors. In the Raglan by-election the Country Party candidate obtained less than 550 votes. It is true that this was double the number obtained at the General Election; but it represented a poor maximum under circumstances which were considered exceptionally favourable in a rural electorate. The Reform candidate was weak; the Government was for the time under a cloud. Farmers might have been expected to express their disapproval of the Government without endorsing Labour's Socialism by supporting the Country Party. Yet they did not. The result was a certain indication that the lessons of Australian division have been learnt here. In New South Wales and elsewhere Labour Governments have been able to attain office and hold it long after they had forfeited public confidence because the quarrels of their opponents made it almost impossible to constitute a stable alternative party. That undoubtedly would ba the result in New Zealand. A Country Party could be nothing more than a wrecker wrecking first the unity of the farmers in other non-political spheres, and then the unity of the only party at present able to stand against Labour. Moreover, it would make well-nigh impossible that unity of purpose and better understanding between city and country which is especially desirable at this time.