TARIFF COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 August 1933, Page 2

TARIFF COMMISSION

FARMERS AND PROTECTION. [per press association.] AUCKLAND, August 9. “Farmers are against protection except when it suits them, just like we all are,” said Professor Murphy, member of the Tariff Commission, in concluding his examination of a witness, who appeared before the tribunal. The witness was A. W. Smith, of the New Zealand Cattle Cake and Oil Company. He asked for an increase in the duty on refined linseed oil to bring it into line with the duty on the raw imported article. Mr Smith further sought retention on linseed cake and stock food of the present duties. “In my capacity as the farmers’ friend,” said Mr A. E. Mender, secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, “1 would like to ask witness whether the price paid for New Zealand lijiseed was greater than that paid for imported linseed? Mr Smith: It is usually higher than we have to pay, if we import. It depends on the market at the time. Mr Smith said the advantage of getting linseed in New Zealand was that the seed compared more than favourably with imported seed. Answering Professor Murphy, witness agreed that in putting forward his case he was partly concerned to protect the farmer who grew linseed.

Professor Murphy: Are you aware that the New Zealand Farmers’ Union repudiates industrial protection in any shape or form? 1 put it to you you are forcing on the farmers a benefit they do not want and which is anathema to them. Their representative is here, and he can correct me if I am wrong.

Mr Smith: It is not like farmers to refuse a good thing. Professor Murphy: Apparently they are against protection. Mr Smith: We have never found any farmers down in Canterbury reluctant to grow linseed. MAIZE-LAND VALUES. AUCKLAND, August 10. The retention of the present duties of 2/- per cental on maize, and the imposition, of a tariff of 1/- on crushed maize, now admitted free, were sought by the Poverty Bay Maize Growers’ Association, and by the Grain and Produce Merchants’ Association, whose representatives gave evidence to-day to the Tariff Commission. Professor Murphy asked one witness if the duty would not injure the poultry industry. Witness replied that in view of the recent price-fall the imposition of. the duty would not leave the consumer in a worse position than he was three months ago. Professor Murphy asked what was the price of maize land in Poverty Bay. Witness replied from £2O to £6O. Professor Murphy: That £6O land has to come down. Witness: It has. It was £l2O. It is a ridiculous situation, and cannot go on.

Professor Murphy: If you are taking into your cost of production, the interest on land standing at past fictitious value, it would be better to get down the value of the land, rather than stabilise it through the Customs. Captain Colbeck (for the Farmers’ Union): If we succeed in getting a reduction of the tariff on the necessaries of life and the tools of production, would it modify your views for protection?

Witness: Yes, certainly. What we are asking for is really a defensive measure.