260 WHEAT PRODUCTION IN NEW ZEALAND 
duction of these industries is but a small fraction of the 
total supply necessary to meet the demands of local 
consumers, consequently prices are raised more or less 
on the whole supply, imported and locally produced 
alike, and the consumer pays for the protection, while 
at the same time the fostering of ‘‘parasitic’’ industries 
retards progress in the great rural industries. 
But the protectionists will ask, ‘‘Why raise huge 
quantities of primary produce for export? Why devote 
our whole energy to agriculture?’’ A few observations 
are sufficient to establish the wisdom of such a policy. 
The fundamental fact is that capital and labour applied 
to rural pursuits in New Zealand give a greater return 
than would the application of a similar quantity of 
capital and labour in any other pursuit. Secondly, we 
require capital in the form of machinery and other 
requisites for the further internal development of the 
country, and, as must be admitted, these can be obtained 
most cheaply from other countries, and can thus best 
be paid for by exports of primary produce. Thirdly, 
we have built up a huge National debt, the interest and 
sinking fund on which cannot be less than £4,000,000 
per annum, and this can be paid for only in produce. 
(c) Some Arguments for Protection to the Wheat 
Industry.*—Returning to the question of protection in 
relation to the wheat industry, let us examine some of 
the arguments which are brought forward by the advo. 
*Clause 8 of the Platform of the Farmers’ Union states that 
‘‘taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of 
raising revenue, and not for protective purposes.’’ Yet many 
farmers of influence in the Union advocate protection for the 
wheat industry generally, and, in particular, retaliation against 
Australia. 
T have seen it stated in relation to the present (1917) dearth 
of wheat that there was only one way out of the difficulty. 
‘The import duty on all flour should be raised to £3 per ton, 
and on wheat to 1s. 9d. per cental.’’ It is hoped that the 
discussion given here will prove that this is both unnecessary 
and unwise. 
