The Taranaki Herald. (DAILY EVENING.) MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1912. THE IRON INDUSTRY.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143766, 15 April 1912, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. (DAILY EVENING.) MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1912. THE IRON INDUSTRY.

A few days ago a deputation of Christchurch ironmasters waited on the new Minister of Customs with a request for further protection through the Customs tariff. A list of articles was submitted, upon which a duty of 33J was desired in order to enable the ironmasters to establish the industry of manufacturing these articles. The members of the deputation were careful to explain that'they had no desire to increase the prices to the consumer. One of them even suggested that a Board should be appointed, as in Germany and Canada, to ascertain whether prices were being increased by the assistance of the tariff, and if that were found to be the case a report could be presented to the Minister and the articles admitted free. Another member of the deputation remarked that through the twentyfive per cent, duty on ranges the range-manufacturing industry had been built up into one of the largest in the country. To-day, he said, the Government could take the protection off, and it would be impossible for the foreign-made article to come into the market. This would be much more convincing if the manufacturers would invite the Government to take the duty off. We have heard so often that a protective duty is only required to assist in the establishment of an industry, and that when once it is established it can stand without protection, that we may be pardoned for being just a little sceptical. Mr. Anderson told the Minister that his firm had specialised in the making of oil engines and dairy boilers, which were not protected, but if they had a protective duty they could double their output, though they would not ask any more for their engines and boilers. This scarcely tallies with the theory that a protective duty is only required in the initial stages of an industry, for here are two industries firmly established without a duty but asking for protection to enable them to expand. Again, the case of a Dunedin firm was quoted, which had formerly exported about £20,000 worth of dredge work to Australia. When the Australian tariff, was put on tha expcni^di»Bßfid~tQ

at Port Chalmers were working at 75 per cent, below capacity. The firm opened a branch in Victoria, and were making a very successful business there. That was due entirely to the tariff, and it was claimed that if New Zealand could about £IOOO, and the firm’s works get the same protection they would be able to establish the industry on a firm basis. What a complication we have here! A New Zealand industry flourishing unaided by protective duty and exporting largely loses its bnsiness because another country imposes a duty on its products, thus shutting them out, and the remedy suggested is the imposition of a duty here. It appears to us that a New Zealand industry which depended for its main support upon the Victorian market was leaning against a very slender reed, and scarcely warranted the investment of largo capital. Yet the fact that large capital was invested and thrown idle is used as an argument for a protective duty in New Zealand. It seems to us a strong argument against protective duties rather than in favour of them, though tljd Dunedin firm in question may claim that, if Australia imposes a duty to protect a Victorian industry, they are equally entitled to protection at the hands of the New Zealand Government. It is a cutthroat business, anyhow', and economically unsound. A much more sensible plan is that suggested by the Hon. Mr. Laurenson, who proposes that there shall be reciprocal trading between Australia and New Zealand, the latter admitting certain Australian timbers free of duty, and Australia admitting certain New Zealand implements free. A still more sensible system -would be complete free trade between the Commonwealth and the Dominion ; then each country would produce what it is best’ fitted for producing. Reverting, however, to the Christchurch deputation, one member said that his firm was prepared to manufacture motorcars if protection -were given, also to lay down a plant for the manufacture of gas and oil engines. These lines, he said, would provide work for hundreds of workers. The same might be said of many other industries, and wo should like to know' whore it is likely to stop. If motor cars, why not typewriters, sewing machines, pianos, milk separators, printing machinery, and dozens of other things? All have an equal right to protection. Mr. Laurenson’s reply to the deputation was sympathetic. The late Government, he said, had pledged itself to revise the tariff, and he assumed that the new Government would try to carry out that policy.