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, 
