256 WHEAT PRODUCTION IN NEW ZEALAND 



may have a superficial advantage" a danger which is 

 always present in popular arguments on economic 

 questions is exceptionally great. The recent attempt 

 to found a New Zealand Board of Industries demon- 

 strates this,* and the report of the New Zealand 

 Efficiency Board wherein the first statement refers to 

 the desirability of higher protective duties. No reasons 

 are given for this, and one may well enquire as to 

 how higher protection would increase our efficiency as 

 producers. 



In New Zealand import duties were first imposed to 

 raise revenue. During the last three decades our 

 attitude towards the tariff question has changed; and 

 now New Zealand fiscal policy has a distinct bias towards 

 protection. Most manufacturing industries are highly 

 protected, 20 and 25 per cent, being in most cases the 

 extent of the protection, a high duty when we remember 

 the natural protection enjoyed by the New Zealand 

 manufacturer through the high freights on over-sea 

 goods. The milling industry is protected by an import 

 duty of 1 per ton on flour, which amounts normally 

 to 10 per cent., while the wheat industry also receives 

 protection from a duty of 9d. per cental, or 6d. per 

 bushel, which at normal times is equivalent to over 

 12J per cent. A study of the effects of these import 

 duties is difficult from two standpoints. In the first 

 place, there is the difficulty peculiar to the study of 

 dynamic economics namely, the impossibility of isolat- 

 ing phenomena which it is desired to study. Secondly, 



*An interesting controversy on "Scientific Tariff'' sprang 

 from this. The writer had the opportunity of following it 

 closely. Those favouring Protection were unable to meet the 

 criticisms of their opponents, and a reviewer of the controversy 

 gave the honours to the Free-traders. This is of interest as it 

 shows how easy it is to argue the case for protection to the 

 satisfaction of the less critical. But where strong arguments 

 based on economic knowledge had to be faced, the Protectionists 

 withdrew. 



