THE WHEAT DUTIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20931, 22 July 1931, Page 8

THE WHEAT DUTIES.

The defence of the wheat duties presented by Mr. David Jones in speeches in Taranaki may have been vigorous, as it was described in a telegram published yesterday, but it was not convincing. He relied upon exaggeration to strengthen his arguments and upon boldness of delivery to sustain conclusions that will not bear analysis. The case for the existing tariff, according to this leading exponent, is that the growing of wheat in the South Island and the protection of that wheat growing against foreign competition arc vital to the successful prosecution of farming in the South Island. That wheat growing is important ha,i never been challenged, but. Mr. Jones' definition of its importance invites examination of the facts. . The area of occupied land in the South Island is 21,767,000 acres, of which 238,000 acres were devoted to wheatgrowing in 1929-30. Thus only one acre in every hundred of agricultural and pastoral lands in the South Island , grows wheat. Even in Canterbury, there are 40 acres used for other purposes to every acre of wheat. That, however, is not the essential consideration. The whole attack upon the existing tariff is based upon the contention that such exorbitant duties are not necessary to protect the industry against competition. Neither in his Taranaki speeches nor elsewhere has Mr. Jones dared to assert that the existing duties are necessary, nor has he or anyone else candidly faced the proposition that the' tariff should be revised to provide no more than sufficient protection. Instead of justifying the present tariff, its defenders rely upon vague generalisations upon the desirability of independence of imported wheat, ignoring the fact that New Zealand is dependent in many other respects

upon importations,* and,the. equally positive fact that, except 4 on rare occasions, it has not been independent in respect of wheat. In the last seven years, net importations of wheat and flour have been equivalent to no less than 28 per cent, of the domestic production. Parliament must realise that Mr. Jones and his supporters are attempting to defend an untenable position—a claim that the 6300 growers of wheat shall alone be entirely immune to fluctuations in economic conditions, that in all circumstances they shall receive a fixed price for their product, and that they shall be absolutely secure against competition unless, by the sort of miscalculation they are not likely to repeat, they happen to grow more wheat than can be consumed in the country,