AN EXPORT HEAVEN

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 139, 16 June 1930, Page 8

AN EXPORT HEAVEN

NO ECONOMIC PAEADISE

THE RELIGION OF GRASS

By "Agricola."

The scientific eye seems to look coldly on mechanical methods (sueli as improved transport) designed to render available those inferior lands now unavailable. .Professor A. E. V. Bichardson, of Adelaide, told the recent Seieneo Congress at Brisbane that in all Australian states the Governments had attempted to increase the agricultural output by bringing new lands under cultivation. In areas of light and uncertain rainfall this had involved heavy-capital expenditure on roads and railways, and it was doubtful whether much of this expenditure was justified economically. An alternative and better method, he suggests, is to secure, by research and experience, better farming and better fanning results. South Australia and Victoria could increase their wheatyields 50 per cent, per acre in this way. COMPETITIVE LEVEL OF POOK LAND. Tho Bruce Government's Tariff Committee of Five, while agreeing that the export jsriina-ry industries would have been less burdened by costs under freetrade, did not agree that under free trade Australia could have supported as many people as it supports, and at as high a standard of living. The committeo found: The evidenco available does not support the contention that Australia could., have maintained its present population at a higher standard of living under free trade. Indeed the Committee goes farther than the above when it finds that— Owing to the quality of our uncultivated land, and the effect of increased exports on the .market, wo arc- satisfied that the same- average income for tho same population could not have beeu obtained without protection. The words "for the same population" are italicised in the report to give emphasis. The Committee sounds the same note when it says that the natural (primary) industries of Australia, under free'trade, would not have supported the existing population and standard, because of "the pressure on inferior land and lower export prices." In other words, production from additional land would have reduced prices to a level at which some of the additional land would not pay to work. Unless, of course, research and better farming could place these lands on a higher productive basis. But scientific research, was not' part of tho Committee's investigation. NO UNLIMITED FAITH IN EXPOKTS. With great candour the Committee admits a great deal of the rural freetrade argument: '.-..- The tariff falls with the greatest weight on the export industries. The valuo of their land and fixed capital is reduced, and the expansion of their production is retarded. They are limited to tho use of land which can carry the costs imposed. And the removal of those costs- imposed on land by the tariff would have increased the amount of productive farm land, but these marginal farm lands would.not have supported tho same population at the same standard. Another indication that the Committee, while denouncing high protection extremes, does not subscribe to theidea that the highest possible export of rural produce is the key to heaven, is found iv the following: The importance of international or external trade is'" commonly exaggerated. It is always small in proportion to domestic trade ... and its volume is no indication of the prosperity of a community. Tasmania has a larger per capita external trade than New South Wales, but is not more prosperous; and. the same applies as between (say) 'Belgium and the United States. The Committee goes on to quote the per capita external trade of various countries. Tasmania is top with over £80 per hea,d; New Zealand second with £60; Australia and Canada have £50 each; United Kingdom £39; Germany and the United States each £15. At a time when so much is being heard of an "agricultural bias" in education (a generalisation which can | never come to trial unless and until it assumes concrete form) it is as well to keep in view this aspect of tho limits of primary production for exportl Another remark of. the. Committeo is that .' (*the statement that imports must balance exports applies to a state of trade which is not disturbed by borrowing or repaying. We may increase our exports as much as wo please if wo use them for repayments and are satisfied to do without the income they produce."