A POLICY OF PROTECTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 222, 15 August 1930, Page 6

A POLICY OF PROTECTION.

Another surprise was sprung on the House on Tuesday when the Government introduced resolutions securing increased Customs levies on certain imports—including tobacco, spirits, timber and bottles. The timber and glass bottle increases are intended to afford further protection to New Zealand industries and it would appear the United Party—aided by their Labour allies—are embarking on a definite protective policy. Whether this will be approved by the people of New Zealand as a whole remains to be seen. In presenting the proposed legislation the Prime Minister explained the object of the increased Customs levies was to obtain increased revenue, to afford protection to certain industries and to grant increased preference to British Empire products. These, briefly, are the reasons given for the increased imposts. While the national Budget must be balanced and local industries should be safeguarded, high Customs tariff barriers are not in the best interests of the Dominion. To a very considerable extent the increased taxation could have been avoided by greater economy in administration. For example, the travelling expenses incurred by departmental officers last year amounted to over £22U,OUU and of this amount £5228 was voted for Ministers’ expenses. Surely this expenditure could be reduced in view of the necessity for balancing accounts. While a protective policy would assist those industries thus “sheltered” it is doubtful if the complete shutting out of imports is desirable in the interests of producers, traders or workers concerned. There can be no objection to a reasonable revenue tariff and which may be applied to the safeguarding of industries, but that tariff should not be sufficiently high to completely prohibit the importation of goods of similar kinds to those so protected. Prohibitive tariffs encourage employment in the industries protected but tend to reduce or restrict employment in trading and transport services; and the result to the consumer or user of the articles protected may be such as to render the protection nega-

live so far as the best interests of the Dominion are concerned. Too much protection may increase rather than decrease the cost of living- and make it more difficult for our primary industries to develop along- lines that would provide increased employment. In effect the remedy of protection may be worse than the economic disease it is hoped to cure.