The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1929. EMPIRE TARIFFS.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1929, Page 12

The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1929. EMPIRE TARIFFS.

The decision of the House of Commons in defeating the Conservative ammendment to the Address-in-Reply, which favoured the retention of the McKenna safeguarding duties, was a foregone conclusion, though it was not expected that some forty Conservatives would abstain from taking part in the division. Liberals and Labour voted solidly against the amendment, thus giving the minority Government an overwhelming victory. The Chancellor oftheExchequerstated that the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had asserted that there could not be Imperial preference without a tax on food and raw material, and to that policy Mr. Snowden said the Labour Government would never subscribe. There are two important points arising out of that dictum, namely, that Imperial preference and safeguarding.duties are two vastly different measures, and that the industrial position in the Old Country to-day is totally different from what it was when Mr. Chamberlain made the statement referred to. The dominant consideration then was cheap food and raw material. Now it is employment as well as duty-free foodstuffs. The war and its aftermath have entirely changed the position as to tariffs and their reaction, a fact which has strongly impressed the congress of international chambers which is now sitting at Amsterdam. That congress is gravely apprehensive of the reaction arising from traiff increases such as those of the United States, and well it may be, especially with respect to its bearing upon the problem of meeting debt obligations. According to the special correspondent of the Financial News, expectations are high “that something of great importance may emerge before the congress ends.” Whatever decisions the congress may register, and no matter how admirable and sound they may be, it is too much to expect that they will influence the policy of either the United States or Germany,, both those countries are bent upon pursuing a policy of intensive output of manufactured goods and dumping them on the markets which have no tariff barriers, while erecting tariff walls of their own, and, in the case of Germany, adding to the handicap a system of bounties. As a matter of policy the fostering of friendly relations between Britain and Germany is worthy of commendation, but there is a limit to the self-sacrifices which may be involved therein. It is true the Germans are saddled with heavy reparations’ payments, but it must, not be forgotten that Britain is also heavily burdened with war debts on behalf of the Allies. Mr. Snowden admits that Britain wants “ prompt and closest commercial relations with every part of the Empire,” and talks of arranging to hold an Imperial economic conference to see what can be done to extend such trade. On that subject Mr. Amery (exsecretary of State for the Dominions) pertinently remarked that the Dominions’ preference to Britain amounted to fourteen millions, while Britain’s preference to the Dominions was worth only two millions, adding, that Britain’s best purchasers were within the Empire, and that 91 per cent, of British exports which went to countries within the Empire were manufactures. It is interesting to note how the British Labour Government proposes to solve this important problem of free trade without preference, and at the same time solve the unemployment problem. Millions are to be spent on railways and other works. Industry is to look after itself by resorting to rationalisation and mass production, thereby reducing the cost of manufacture. According to Mr. Runciman (Liberal) it is most surprising that so many Conservatives still think the volume .of trade can be increased by taxing it. He also asserted that when an industry depended on artificial assistance it was bound sooner or later to meet catastrophe. The argument is one that has been strongly advanced in New Zealand on more than one occasion, and may well be noted by the wheat-growers. Without "doubt the ideal position is free trade all round, accompanied by the most friendly international relations, but such a consummation is not within sight. If the British Labour Government can succeed in materialising its avowed policy, well and good. It is only right they should have the chance, but it will require a great change in world conditions before they, can hope to successfully overcome the existing obstacles to their plans to convert the world to a new Utopia.

WHEAT AND FLOUR DUTIES. The plain speaking indulged in by a member of the present Ministry (Hon. J. B. Donald) in regard to the existing duties on wheat and flour was likely to appeal to the great majority of consumers. The Postmaster-General expressed the opinion that the “wheatgrowers and the flourmillers bad been bleeding the people of New Zealand for a considerable number of years, and they had received a great deal more protection than they were entitled to.” These views are widely shared throughout the country, and the question that is still unanswered is in what manner an improvement can be brought about. The matter is to be referred to a select committee of the House of Representatives, and upon its report the Government will announce its policy. It is sincerely to be hoped the reference to a committee does not mean that this important question is to be side-tracked. The removal of taxes upon the bread of the people was one of the promises made by members of all political parties when seeking election, and it seems high time the inquiry upon which policy is to be shaped should begin. For the sake of the wheatgrowers, and from the point of view of the country’s finance, there is every reason to avoid procrastination. The farmer will want to know whether he is to receive further protection either by renewal of existing duties or by way of subsidy, and the treasurer must know what he is expected to provide in the estimates for the ensuing year. Not only is there grave doubt whether the cost of protection to th wheatgrowers is worth while, but there is even graver misgiving that the greater portion of the cost to the country of such protection does not reach the producer at all. It is right and proper that impartial inquiry should ascertain the true position. It is equally important that investigation be made without delay. . The matter is not one of party politics. Mr. Donald’s frankness has made that quite clear, but it is one which seriously affects the greater portion of the community, and should therefore receive whatever priority of treatment is possible.