FARMERS AND TARIFFS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22268, 22 May 1934, Page 12

FARMERS AND TARIFFS

TO THE EDUOB Sib, —In your issue of the 18th inst. appeared a letter signed by Mr J. B. Chapman, of Waitaki, on the above subject. This was by no meiins the first letter written on the same subject by that gentleman, and we have allowed his previous remarks to pass without reply, but he has at last exceeded the limits of our patience, and we wish to show that the statements made by him in his last letter are not only incorrect and unjust, but are calculated to do harm to an industry which has been of great benefit to the farmers of New Zealand, and in which our firm has been engaged for a period of 66 years. It is difficult to know just what Mr Chapman is aiming at. He commences by accusing secondary industries of inefficiency—evidently with the idea of showing that protection should be withdrawn from them. Strangely enough, in order to prove his contention he quotes the price of an Australian harrow which ia being sold in New Zealand at a lower price than the New Zealand product, and gives details of its alleged superiority in every way. Now. everyone with knowledge of tariffs in New Zealand and Australia knows that Australia is far more highly protected than New Zealand. It would seem then, on Mr Chapman's evidence, that it is producing extraordinarily good . results in enabling the Australian implement manufacturer (hitherto unknown in the New Zealand market) to send over superior products at reasonable prices. Mr Chapman's quotations of the prices of New Zealand farm implements are quite pointless to those who understand the subject, but to anyone who is not conversant with the numerous) types and weights of implements manufactured, his figures may possibly prove.misleading and cause your readers to suppose that the New Zealand-made farm implements are ridiculously expensive. _ As a matter of fact New Zealand prices keep the imported prices down to New Zealand level. The drill referred to by Mr Chapman is an expensive drill to make. It is a copy of the old English, drill and is made by only one New Zealand manufacturer in Christchurch, and a very limited number are used. The imported drill does not compete with it. Where the imported drill does compete, prices will be found to be very near each other, the local make being the lower priced. The only comparisons worthy of consideration are those made between implements of like size, weight, and construction, and when figures are taken out on these lines, the New Zealand article will be found in most instances to be the cheaper. As there appears to be a great deal of ignorance in regard to the tariff' protection afforded to implement makers in New Zealand we take this opportunity of giving the correct details: —The local implement making industry was established without any tariff assistance, nor did it receive any protection whatever until 1921. At that date a duty of .10 per cent, was placed on four lines only of British Empire imports and 35 per cent, on foreign. The duties were in 1927 extended to eight lines, but in 193], as retaliation against Canada for her embargo on New Zealand butter, Canadian

implements were placed on the general tariff, bringing the tariff on these lines also to 35 per cent. The duty was imposed for the express purpose of forcing Canada to accept our butter and was aimed to aid the farmer rather than the manufacturer. . . No one has a right to complain of criticism if it is fair and warranted, but extravagant remarks such as those of Mr Chapman cause ill-feeling between primary producer and manufacturer if the former should be misled by his statements t into thinking that everyone is " fleecing the farmer and that the manufacturing industries " are a species of old man's home where one and all quietly dodge along behind the shelter of a high tariff wall; and where the order of the day is to ' pass it on' to the purchaser." Surely the time has come when we can all work together without jealous criticism, and put our energies into making all our industries as efficient as possible, both primary and manufacturing.— We are etc.. Reid & Gray, Ltd., George Gray, Managing Director. Dunedin, May 17.