The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1927. THE PRODUCER’S BURDENS

Evening Star, Issue 19616, 23 July 1927, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1927. THE PRODUCER’S BURDENS

To bring about n belter understanding between primary producers and city dwellers was the purpose of a mooting held this week in Hamilton. Tim Farmers’ Union promoted this gathering, but an attendance of no less than 700 people suggests that the townspeople arc quite alive to the dependence of their livelihood on the prosperity of primary production. Perhaps the most significant feature of the meeting was the resolution passed by a gathering composed of varying elements of the, community affirming that the present system of protective duties is a serious menace to the prosperity of the dominion, as ii increases costs and retards production. Hamilton, however, though among the larger towns outside the four centres, cannot bo regarded as a scat of secondary industries, and it is doubtful if such a resolution would have had an easy passage in any of our manufacturing towns. Tlie view of these latter may be taken as succinctly expressed by the last issue of that admirable little quarterly magazine, ‘ The New Zealander,’ which is published under the aegis of the various manufacturers’ associations. It stax-s that “the farmers’ fear of the reasonable protection of manufacturing industries is due to a misunderstanding of the facts. The development of those industries, thus widening the local market for farm products, necessarily helps to ensure, the fanner against disastrous falls in prices for bis goods in markets overseas.” Various authorities, including Air Coates and Air W. AL. Hughes, are quoted with the. object of dispelling farmers’ anxieties lest the things they need will be raised in price by the encouragement of manufacture locally. The journal of the British National Union of Manufacturers is also quoted in disproof of the idea that manufacturers ask for a tariff to enable them to increase their prices, their real aim being to reduce their prices through the increased output they «xpeet to gain with the help of the tariff. Therein lies the whole pith of the matter. The evidence on the point is contradictory. American experience, for example, points one way and Australian experience another way. The New Zealand farmer may be excused if he misdoubts the probability of protection ultimately bringing him lower prices for the things he has to purchase. At the same time, when he contemplates the revenue derived by the Government from Customs duties, he should not forget that over a third of it is contributed by liquors and tobacco, though these amount to only slightly over 5 per cent, of onr total imports. Those luxuries arc not taxed for protective purposes, but in order to bring in revenue. There is other taxation which presses heavily on the farmer besides that imposed through the Customs. Local taxes in particular are becoming heavier to t lie point of unjust oppression, principally because of the increased demands of hospital boards, unending requirements for road maintenance, aud the assessments placed by power boards on rural properties, some of which, though within their proclaimed rateable area, arc not provided with power, and arc admittedly not likely ,to bo so provided for very many years, if ever. It is now becoming evident that some of the hydro-electric power schemes in New Zealand arc premature, over-ambitious, and in rarer cases likely to prove a dead weight on rural production instead of a costs reducer and a stimulant. It is not surprising to learn that, failing legal remedy against heavy rates without any compensating service or advantage, or any immediate prospect of any, a number of property-owners in the Southland Power Board district are petitioning Parliament for relief. At the same time the Southland Power Board is petitioning Parliament to take over a large portion of its huge capital liability. Undoubtedly this particular power scheme was ill-advised, and, moreover, it came into operation at a time when production in Southland sustained a severe blow through the collapse in the demand for oats and for Chewing’s fescue seed, on which some parts of Southland relied. The consequence is the lamentable sight of abandoned farms, the occupiers having simply walked off through inability to carry on and none others being found willing to take their places. It is also a common thing to hoar of a reduction of agriculture to a minimum on pastoral properties, involving the disappearance of teams and the shortening of farm bands. This reversion of arable land to pasture, not to mention to weeds and rabbits in the case of abandoned holdings, is sure enough sign of the heavy stress on the producer. It is obvious that some attempt will have to be made to relievo it. But it is unfortunately not so obvious that even all the measures outlined by Air Poison at Hamilton, including economy in public expenditure, the extension of rural credits, and restriction of the Arbitration Court’s powers, would materially alter a very grave situation.