CASE FOR PROTECTION

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 641, 18 April 1929, Page 6

CASE FOR PROTECTION

INDUSTRIALISTS AND FARMERS CONFER FISCAL PROBLEMS Parmers and manufacturers, as represented by their chosen delegates, have not yet reconciled their respective viewpoints on fiscal questions, but the third of a series of conferences has indicated a gradual movement toward a solution of the common problem which faces them industrially. TMIE third conference was held last evening, when Mr. A. A. Ross presided. Mr. H. M. Rushworth, newlyelected member for the Bay of Islands seat, was present and received a short welcome from the president of the Manufacturers’ Association. Although the deliberations were eventually adjourned, Mr. Finn expressed the opinion toward the close of the meeting that common ground could be reached if the right lines were pursued. He extended an invitation to the farmers’ representatives to visit the industries of the city and gauge their extent and their merits. The farmers reciprocated with an invitation to the Farmers’ Union conference. In general the ground traversed last evening was largely along the lines of that which had been covered previously, the speeches of all the members showing a wide divergence between the viewpoints of the farmer advocates of free trade ,and the industrial champions of protection. The president of the Manufacturers’ Association, Mr. G. Finn, read a long paper under the title “The Case for Protection,” In which he gave a comprehensive presentation of the protectionist case and answered several of the statements made by farmer members at previous conferences. fie quoted figures to show that free trade had tailed when tried by America, and that the advantages claimed for free trade by the followers of Cobden had not been borne out in Britain. The standaid of living of the farmer, he said, could best be raised by developing their local market to sugh an extent that they would as little as possible have to copipete with serfs in Siberia, peons'in Argentina, or kafir in South Africa at world parity. At present they could only compete with them at the expense of their own flesh and blood and their hired hands. A tariff board would assist a solution. The arguments raised by Mr. Finn were hotly challenged by the free traders on the farming side, and, as previously, the conference became a discussion upon the respective merits of free trade and protection. PROTECTION AND PREJUDICE Farm implements were singled out a show whether or not protection really did raise prices, but here again the conference could not agree because the figures quoted from the opposite sides of the table differed. Mr. A. E. Robinson said even with the bounty, some of the New Zealand iron could not compete with the foreign product. Mr. J. Findlay: I have been told our iron is the best to work. Mr. H. M. Rushworth: Tken it does not xieed protection. Mr. Finn: It might take some years to work up to a flourishing industry. Mr. Rushworth: llow many years? Fifty? Mr. Finn: I would not say that. But you have to overcome public prejudice. Ml-. Robinson: There is no prejudice against New Zealand iron. Mr. A. A. Ross, in vindication of free trade generally, said we in New Zealand had practically free trade with Eastern countries, but this could not alter the standard of living in any of those countries, nor in ours. The idea of trying to make our country self-supporting was ridiculous; the object should be to increase the volume of commodities available for consumption. Mr. Rushworth. after likening protection in its general sense to robbery, said New Zealand had been found by statistical investigation to be the most expensive country in the world in which to live. He reiterated his recent election platform advocacy of the removal of protection from the necessities of life, which, he declared, raised the price of the commodity by at least the amount of the tax. The remedy would be based upon the cost of production, and until it was tackled seriously upon those lines, the problem would not be solved. CONSUMERS’ CASE He urged that the wheat duties be abolished and bounties substituted. This, he added, would enable the grower to receive the necessary encouragement to produce and the consumer to buy a cheaper product, while the burden thus removed from the consumer would be transferred to the iucome tax payer. In this way the cost of wheat production would be reduced, leading to a cheapening of labour, and, in fact, the beginning of the -circle of generally reduced costs all round. Mr. G. Mills-Palmer claimed that free trade was an evil policy, and said an increase of the income tax would shoulder the industrialist with a greater burden, because the farmer did not pay income tax. At this there was an outcry from the farmers’ representatives: “We would like to and would be only too glad to do so.” Early in the evening, Mr. Finn said John Stuart Mill's policy was out of date, and Mr. Rushworth retorted that he could go back to Moses and the Ten Commandments, which, he presumed, would also be out of date. Then Mr. Mills-Palmer said that to quote Mill to-day was like quoting the Bible in support of a theory that an oxen was superior to the tractor. Mr. Findlay blamed the farmers for most of the country’s pessimism, because. he said, they cried poverty aud said their business never could pay. The discussion wUI be resumed on a date to be fixed in June.