RELATED TOPICS 263 



But granted that production would permanently 

 diminish so that we should have no exportable surplus, 

 then can we say that our position is serious enough to 

 be alarming? Here, indeed, is the main argument for 

 protection. The possibility of a drought in New Zealand 

 and Australia at the same time must cause some anxiety, 

 if we are to become dependent upon the Commonwealth 

 for supplies of primary products.* But we have shown 

 that New Zealand is very rarely seriously affected by 

 a drought, that is, from the point of view of wheat 

 yield. Thus, during the season 1914-15 when the ''use- 

 ful" (May-November) rainfall in Canterbury was about 

 11 inches, a low figure, the yield per acre was no less 

 than 28-9 bushels. It was not until 1915-16 that the 

 yield fell considerably. But the ''useful" rainfall in 

 that year was less than 7 inches. Even then the yield 

 was above 20 bushels per acre. But we may rely on 

 past experience to guide us to some extent in this 

 matter. An examination of the harvests for Australia 

 and New Zealand during the last 32 years (1874-1915), 

 reveals the interesting fact that only once has a bad 

 season in Australia coincided with a bad one here. 

 In other years of bad harvests in Australia we have 

 enjoyed good yields. Thus, a very low return was 

 registered in Australia in 1888, but in New Zealand 

 production was a maximum in that year for the period 

 1885-1891. But in 1902 Australia had an exceptionally 

 poor harvest, which coincided with low production in 

 New Zealand. In this year, however, prices remained 

 abnormally low, being only 2s. 5d. per bushel in New 

 Zealand; this shows that our price is not the result of 

 conditions affecting local supply merely. Even were 



*Even in times of drought the wheat yield of the Common- 

 wealth is generally in excess of the requirements for home 

 consumption, and there is an exportable surplus. But this was 

 not so in 1914. 



