A TWO-EDGED WEAPON

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 26, 30 July 1931, Page 12

A TWO-EDGED WEAPON

The "Government has committed itself definitely to the imposition of dumping duty as a means of cancelling exchange differences. This policy was defended by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday. '

Whore it was considered necessary in tlio public interest (Mr. Forbes said) a dumping duty equal to the amount of tho exchango premium obtained in excess of 5 per coat, was imposed on bran and pollard from Australia.

"In the public interest" in this in stance- means "in the .interest of the wheatgrower and miller"; for the dumping duty is quite clearly depriving the users of bran and pollard, the dairy, pig, and poultry farmers, of benefits they would otherwise obtain. The Government, however, does not seem to have recognised that this use of the dumping duty to equalise exchange is a two-edged weapon. If it is right to impose a dumping duty to correct the loss of protection through exchange which is favourable to New Zealand, what has the Government to say about protection which is increased by,exchange which is against New Zealand? The protection given to certain local industries is increased by 10 per cent, of the value of the imported goodsequal in many instances to an actual increase of one-third in duty—because the English exchange is 10 per cent, against New Zealand. The consumer must pay this unless the mer-chant-importer can carry it. If the Government considers it has a duty to equalise the effect of exchange by imposing a dumping duty in one case, is it not under an equal obligation to ! reduce the tariff where the exchange is unfavourable? We fear that the Government has not considered the question from this viewpoint. Its action in putting the duty on bran and pollard has been dictated rather by that simple little slogan which the Leader of the Opposition proclaimed on a tour of the wheat districts of the South Island: "Stand by the farmer." How is that rule to be applied when the farmers are not wheatgrowers, but dairy, pig, and poultry farmers, and users of wheat and wheat products? And what of the consumer who cannot claim the privileges of the farmer? He must pay his duty on this and exchange on that. "Stand by the farmer" is a splendid slogan (so long as one is not asked to say which fanner); and "Stand on the consumer" appears to be a general, practice wilh this iind preceding Governments.