A LANGUISHING INDUSTRY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18163, 10 August 1933, Page 7

A LANGUISHING INDUSTRY

■ ■ m •; 5 ■ MAT7.F. GROWERS ’ APPEAL _ THE CASE FOR GISBORNE TARIFF COMMISSION

(Special to the Hereld.) ’ * . AUCKLAND, this day.. Since. 1929, the value of the maize industry to Gisborne has decreased alarmingly, and last year the total value df sales was less than one-sixth of that four years before. This information was placed before the Tariff Commission to-day by representatives of the Poverty Bay Maize Growers’ Association, Messrs. C. Tietjen and J. B. Greig. They urged that, if growers were given an adequate return they wculd be able to supply the whole of the requirements of New Zealand, acting in conjunction with the Bay of Plenty. Mr. G. W. Armstrong also gave Evidence on behalf of the local merchants. . . ~ Mr Tietjen, who is chairman of the Poverty Bay Maize Growers’ Associasaid that ...growers desired the imposition -of Is -per- cental on-crushed--im--ported maize with.the idea.of providing reasonable protection for the whole of the maize growing industry, which, once placed, on an economic basis, must bo the means of providing employment relief, to a very considerable extent 'in New Zealand’s most, fertile districts. '

REDUCTION OF CHARGES ••At present,” he added, “considerable tracts of arable country in the v... maize growing areas of New Zealand are I yielding only a comparatively small fir gracing return, simply because there is no outlet for the • bountiful harvests it would be possible to obtain therefrom. “With a steadily increasing demand, entirely within the country, the New Zealand producer has. the right not only to claim, but to expect prior benefit. Yet, in the season 1932-33, almost 500.000 busheii of imported crushed maize passed c<rer our wharves, from which not one farthing’s worth of duty was received. , “It has been argued that the New Zealand grower must reduce his cost of production. How can he reduce his cost of production when the main contributing factors are items over which he has no control, namely, the high cost of land, labor and taxes. Every' effort has been made by the growers in Poverty Bay to obtain a reduction of overhead charges, so as to enable them to meet overseas competition. Harvesting charges have been reduced, merchants and shipping companies have all been approached, and every avenue exploited, whereby reductions can be effected. ■ “Whilst a certain measure of relief has been afforded by the Government in the - way of reductions in interest charges, land costs are still unquestionably too high. By allowing free importations of overseas crushed maize, the Government is not only cutting off legitimate avenues of revenue of, in many cases, it own tenants and the means of-meeting their interest obligations, but letting slip the opportunity of collecting through the Customs Departmen quite a considerable sum in duty, that'could be collected without the infliction of the slightest hardship on consumers. A tariff on overseas crushed maize will restrict importations, as no tariff is at present chafged, but the Customs Department has really nothing to lose, as even limited importations would result in additional revenue. , , DUMPING OVERSEAS GRAIN “As the consumer in purchasing a bushel qf crushed maize, is only obtaining the gross weight of 501 b, as against S6tb per bushel on whole maize, the alight in his cost would be very largely compensated for by the 61b per bushel gained in quantity. “Whust it might be contended that at present New Zealand is not producing \ sufficient supplies to fulfil the country s requirements, we are in a position to figures before you which clearly show that this position has been brought •bout almost entirely through the dumping of overseas maize on the local markH, thereby forcing the New Zealand grower to explore other avenues of revenue. With the reinstatement of the jadhstry on a sound footing, there is no question that internal production can, •ad would be, doubled, thereby relieving to » very considerable extent the present congestion in the dairying industry, as unquestionably many districts, provided they are assured of a reasonable outlet, wohld concentrate very much more extensively on the growing of maize. “Although it was naturally impossible with any degree of accuracy to estimate th* actual amount of capital and the number of workers employed-at present in the New Zealand maize industry, as it covers a considerable area of the But Coast, Poverty Bay, Bay of Plenty, and northern Hawke’s Bay districts, as well as Motiti Island, the figures would be' substantial, and with the bringing in of increased areas employment would be found for a great number of workers at present partly supported by the Government,”

VALUES FOB SEVEN YEARS ~~ Mr. Greig, who is secretary of the Mii» Growers’ Association, stated u “Poverty Bay exports over the last six'year 8 approximate half of the New Zealand grown maize marketed in this country. Our average yield is 70 bushels pair acre '"‘Gisborne exports over aeven years

“Our position calls for some strong measures to prevent the extinction of rnmi« growing, which' would be a very 'serious matter for the consumers, leaving, them without the restraining competition of local production. Had the ideal supply satisfied the market, £144,909 would have been retained in New Zealand, and had all the imported maiae since 1927 paid the 2s per cental duty as anticipated. £18,882 more would have been paid in Customs duties. Four ■hillings is the amount spent in wages to’pro* luce one sack of maize, so a further £IO,OOO in wages would have been provided by the two producing districts each year.' This would have considerably relieved unemployment. FREIGHT ANOMALY “Another , viewpoint on the industry is that of employees other than farmers themselves. Low returns for maize have lowered the rate paid for picking maize from 42s 6d to 50s per acre in 1927-8-9 tp 90s to 27s 6d per acre in 1933. The earning per day of nine to ten hours being 5a to 8s 6d. With a rise in prices, higher wages would naturally follow. "We pould call your attention to the '• subject of freights. The freight on - maiae from Africa to Auckland is only ij§ Id per sack more than from Gisborne to Ke-Aacjdand, and 8d less than from Gisborne to Wellington Endeavors, so far Unsuccessful, are being made to lower our.freights. . Further, with the- pro*

. pective competition in shipping circles. v and probability of a .height war, we will have another handicap. It is possible that the new line might exploit the unprotected New'Zealand market for producing countries other than South Africa, and if in order we would suggest a-farther Empire preference in this direction. Thus, while imposing a small tariff on African maize we would be dbrot&oif iem 4 P re * erence * n ano^er .. “A comparison of the average f.oj) price per bushel of maize for five years tsasfollows:—

V‘A study of these figures and the ■landed coat with the retail price will show that even if the tariff on all maize was 2a per cental it would mean very little increase ha the price to the consumer. At present we have a measure of benefit froim the difference in the exchange, bat it appears that this will be h?at by degrees, and while asking for n restitution of tariff on crushed, cracked, or. kibbled, we consider that no alteration should be made in the tariff on whole maize “When the original request for restitution of duty on crushed, cracked, hr kibbled maize was made the farmer was receiving 3s 8d and 3s 9d per bushel. SiiK»-ttien, .hnwnver, the price has further declined to 3s to the farmers, so it yriU he' seen that at least 2s per cental is necessary to put the industry in a satisfactory position, and you will realise that the request of Is per cental Shows an honest / consideration for the position of Abe leastlthat.could be asked for.” . -W lllil.l ■ i mu

:"|1 Av. price Value per bushel M ... Sacks 17,780 s d 6 0 £ 19,300 1987 ... 29,400 6 0 31,972 1988 30,100 5 6 30,100 1909 ,.. 55,740 S 1 51,430 1830 ... 31,360 4 4 24,729 1831 23,160 4 0 16,790 1832 ... 11.700 , 310 8,140

is L' v %•?? t V:''* y V: Imported Imported N.Z. crushed , whole whole Year » d 8 d s d 1928 ■ 4. 7 5 04 5 6 * lfl»-5-0 4 11 5 1 1930 2 U 2 11 4 4 1931 ... 2 5 2 4 0 1932 ... 3 6' 2 6 3 10