The Wealth and annual production of New Zealand: [Paper read before the Otago Institute, with alterations]

The Wealth and annual production of New Zealand: [Paper read before the Otago Institute,with alterations].Author(s): Brown, MainwaringSource: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection, (1888)Published by: The University of Manchester, The John Rylands University LibraryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60231562 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 05:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Digitization of this work funded by the JISC Digitisation Programme.

The University of Manchester, The John Rylands University Library and are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.177 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:29:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=manchester

http://www.jstor.org/stable/60231562?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


2=SSICB a?2XI2EB^S3SrC;3

1 THE WEALTH

AND ANNUAL PRODUCTION

{OF NEW ZEALAND.

I

NWARING BROWN, M.A.,

Professor of Political Economy m the

j University of Otago.

i

}< DUNE DIN

\MES HORSBURGH, PUBLISHER, 73 GEORGE S'l REE1

MDCCCLXXXVIII





THE WEALTH

> AND ANNUAL PRODUCTION

* OF NEW ZEALAND.

i

MAINWARING BROWN, M.A.,

Profcssov of Political Economy in the

University of Otago.

'•°&%mll&%$*»

DUNEDIN :

James Horsburgh, Publisher, 73 George Street.

MDCCCLXXXVIII.



C^pHIS Paper was originally read before the Otago Institute, and was afterwards criticised at a special meeting. All the

points that were raised at this meeting, and by- various critics both in the press and privately, have been carefully considered, and some alter¬ ations have been made, especially in the table of Pastoral Produce. The total results, how¬ ever, are practically unaltered.

Comparisons are instituted wherever possible, since it is only by comparison that we can judge of our position. The bulk of these comparisons are made with Victoria, both because it is one of our nearest and most prosperous neighbours, and because Mr. Hayter's admirable statistics afford exceptional facilities for the process.

I have to express my thanks for assistance rendered me by the Piegistrar-General, Mr Sperrey, and Mr Hickson.

>

f



X

T H J3

Ijfyaltfl atpl ^mntal |fyattoj|tiffl

OF NEW ZEALAND.

Methods op Ascertaining the Wealth of the Colony.

The wealth of countries may be divided into the two classes of public and private. The amount of public wealth can usually be discovered by simply examining official returns ; but with private wealth the case is more difficult, and various tests have been applied by statisticans with the object of arriving at an approximation to it. Perhaps the most satisfactory of these tests is to take the amount of property left at death, and to divide it by the number of persons who die, the result being the average wealth per head ; since, as Mr Hayter says, " it may be supposed that the average amount left by each person dying is equivalent to the average amount possessed by each person living." But m this colony we have the exceptional advantage that we can check our result by the returns made to the Property Tax department. There is, however, one great drawback to the useful¬ ness of these returns—viz., that they are made by taxpayers under the strongest sense that they form the basis of taxation, and that consequently it is most improvident not to put down every item at its lowest value, or not to leave it out altogether if there is any excuse for doing so. I lay some stress upon this because there is an idea abroad that properties are often returned at too high a value. If this is done in particular cases it is certainly not of sufficiently frequent occurrence to bring the total



value up to anything like its real amount. The probate returns no doubt give a fairer view of the case,'though they understate the real wealth, because no account is taken of sums under £100. It may be as well to mention that estates left entirely to the widow are not included ; but this does not affect the result, since the property is counted on the death of the widow. I therefore take the probate returns as- the basis of my calculation of the national wealth, and regard the property tax return as chiefly valuable because it gives us an idea of the items.

dP

y Wealth according to the Property Tax Returns.

The return from which I have taken the figures in the first table was made by the Property Tax depart¬ ment last year, and it is to be found in the appendix to the journals of the House of Representatives, marked B—6. The bulk of the items explain them selves without any comment, but those which compose the "Private Debts " are arrived at in a necessarily very imperfect fashion. In the first place, the amount of foreign capital lent on mortgage is only the estimate of the department, though the wide knowledge of the financial condition of the colony possessed by Mr Sperrey and his assistants makes it well worth quoting. Tn the second place I have arrived at the debts owed to foreign creditors by deducting the amount of debts returned as "owed to persons making statements" from the total indebtedness. Now, in many cases it is known that in their statements people omit all, or a great part, of what is owed to them, so the debts to foreign creditors are made to appear much larger than they really are. Thus, we ma}' assume that the amount set down in the table as owed to persons in the colony is too small, while that set down as owed to persons outside the colony is too large. The total indebtedness is probably fairly correct, though it may be unduly swelled by some large mortgages which have been registered in two local offices, and therefore counted twice over.

Having thus noticed the weakest points in the return, we can proceed to inquire the amount of wealth it makes out that we possess. The amount of debts owed to creditors within the colony does not diminish the total wealth ; one set of persons is poorer



-i

by the liability, another set is richer by the asset, but the community as a whole is neither richer nor poorer. With respect to outside debt the case is different, and the whole amount must be deducted from our wealth, which will then stand thus :—

Total private property £137,137,000 Deduct debts owed outside the Colony 28,375,000

Total private wealth £108,762,000

The private wealth divided by the number of per¬ sons in the Colony (578,842 in March 1886) gives us £188 as the average wealth of each person.

In closing this part of my inquiry I must repeat that there can be no doubt that the amount thus arrived at is considerably below the real amount.

Wealth of the Colony.

According to Property Tax Returns based on the Assessment of 1885.

public property. Crown Lands £13,675,000 Education, municipal, and other reserves 7,252,000 Public Works 19,377,000

Total £40,304,000

public debt.

Debt of the Colony, deducting sinking fund

Debts of local bodies

Total

£31,688,000 5,616,000

£37,304,000

Of these debts £3,131,000 was held in the Colony in 1887 by the Post Office Savings Bank, Government Insurance, &e.



private property. Real estate Furniture and household goods Horses, cattle, sheep, and other live stock Produce, merchandise, and agricultural

implements Shipping All other property (including deposits in

banks) Total

£89,602,000 4.288,000

8,634,000

11,658,000 1,226,000

21,729,000

£137,137,000

X

y

PRIVATE debts. Mortgages (foreign capital) Debts owed to foreign creditors

Total owed outside the Colony

Mortgages (colonial capital).. Debts owed to local creditors

Total owed inside the Colony Total private indebtedness Total private wealth

Wealth per head

£16,832,000 11,543,000

£2S,375,000

£14,9S8,000 8,S22,000

£23,S10,000 £52,185,000

£10S,762,000 £18S

wealth according to the probate returns. The probate returns for New Zealand have not hitherto been published, and I am indebted to Mr Hickson and his assistants for having made me the very laborious calculation of which they are the result. It will be observed that they are averaged for a period of five years, the reason being that the falling in of a very large estate may cause the aver¬ age of any one year to be misleading. The Victorian calculation is copied from Mr Hayter's " Year Book." Those for New South Wales and the United Kingdom I worked out from returns contained respectively in Mr Coghlan's official work " The Wealth and Progress of New South Wales,'' and in the ''Statistical Ab¬ stract of the United Kingdom."



Estimate of Wealth from Probate Returns.

i.

a u o o £

Years. 6= -» d e

left persoi Total Wealth

3 o -.A S +3 is rf < s

> 4

NEW ZEALANI 1882-86 £ 6,366,736 29,718 £214 £ 119,305,008

VICTORIA. 1872-70 11,699,757 63,402 185 143,569,620 1877-81 13,732,848 61,552 223 186,578,971 1882-86 21,175,139 69,461 305 285,527,885

NEW SOUTH WALES. 1882-86 22,351,S58 69.154 323 316,927,608

THE UNITED KINGDOM. 1882-86 866,484,000 3,453,453 250 9,135,122,250

It will be noticed that the probate returns give us £214 a head, a larger amount of wealth than the property tax returns do. This is only what might be expected from what we have seen ot the errors likely to arise from the former method of estimating our wealth; and I feel convinced that the probate returns themselves give us a result that is lower than tne reality. For purposes of comparison, however, the probate returns are excellent, and the comparison shows us that this young country is not so very much poorer than the richest of old countries—the United Kingdom. The capital with which we are working is, then, ample—instead of being very poor, we are really very rich. It is true that we are far from as rich as Victoria or New South Wales ; but one very hopeful point crops up in the comparison ;—Twelve years ago Victoria was not so rich per head as we are now, though her population was considerably greater and her resources probably better developed ; her great advance has been made in the last 12 years. The figures in this case are one of the most striking in¬ stances of progress that I have ever seen in print, but the progress of Victoria seems to have been actually exceeded by that of New South Wales, where, if the returns are correct, the average wealth per head must have risen from £184 in the quinquennium 1S77-81 to



8

£323 in that of 1S82-86. If we are likely to follow in the steps of these sister colonies our prospects are certainly very good. Whether we are likely to do so depends upon our production, which we will now examine.

Agricultural Produce. Our annual production is a far more important matter than our accumulated wealth. Par more important be- •

cause there can be no doubt that if our production is satisfactory, then, no matter how poor we may be, we must grow in wealth, unless we are altogether thrift¬ less ; while if our production is not satisfactory, we must grow poor, however great our accumulated wealth. In the three principal branches of production—viz., agriculture and pasture, mining, and manufactures, we have statistics which give us a very fair idea of our position, and, fortunately, there are even better materials for ascertaining the position of Victoria. The table illustrating the production of our agriculture is prepared on Mr Hayter's system, in order to give us as exact an idea as possible of how we compare with Victoria. The amounts of produce in both colonies are probably fairly accurate, but difficulties arise m respect of prices. The Victorian statist has prepared his list of prices from a number of returns showing the value of produce on the farm in every district of the colony. The prices are simply the average amounts that the farmers obtain ; no account is taken of the value added by transport, &e. Now in this colony we have returns of average prices for each provincial district, but these returns in many cases give too high a value for my purpose, as they show what the consumer gives, which is often a good deal more than the producer receives. My prices then are mere estimates, they are arrived at from a comparison of the official returns already men¬ tioned, with the average declared values of exports, and with the market reports; and the results have been criticised by experts who very kindly rendered their assistance. Since the paper has been published, the table of agricultural produce has not been attacked, and as it needs no explanation I will merely say that the price of wheat, though it would be high for the present moment, is below the export average of 1886 ; and that the value of smaller crops, as to which the data were very insufficient, has been put at a figure which I believe to be considerably below the truth.

X

y

I



^' y^ y

AGEICULTUBAL PE OD UCE — 188 6 - 7

Comparative Tablb on Mr Hayter's System.

New Zealand. Victoria. Name of Crop.

Gross Product Estim'd Price.

Estimated Value. Gross Product. Price. Estimated

Value.

£ s. d. £ £ s. d. £ Wheat 6,297,638 bush 0 3 0 1,102,086 12,100,036 bush 0 3 9 2,268,757 Oats 11,973,295 „ 0 16 897,997 4,256,079 „ 0 2 9 585,211 Barley 558,006 0 2 0 69,825 827,852 0 3 3 134,526 Potatoes 134,905 tons 2 0 0 269,930 170,061 tons 4 0 0 682,644 Other root crops (turnipsio N.Z.) 318,653 acres 10 0 318,653 37,945 „ 3 0 0 113,835 Hay 79,103 tons 3 0 0 237,30'J 483,049 3 13 0 1,763,129 Green forage (oats in N.Z.) 98,029 acres 1 10 0 147,04b 2S4,186 acres 2 10 0 710,465 Other crops 22,002 „ 4 0 0 88,00fc 5,841 „ 5 0 0 29,205 Garden and orchard produce 22,885 „ 12 0 0 274,020 27,593 „ 20 0 0 551,860 Other cereals, grapes, &c. Not distinguished 421,103

3,405,000 7,260,735



10

Pastoral Produce. The estimate of pastoral produce originally made in

this paper was on Mr Hayter's system, but as the re¬ sults were occasionally objected to, and the process was invariably misunderstood, I substitute calculations which I believe will be more easily comprehended. The total result is much the same as before, but it would have been considerably larger if I had not lowered my estimate of dairy produce to make it agree with some very doubtful returns sent in by farmers of their produce of butter and cheese.

DAIEY PEODUCE, Average consumption, estimated for the United

States by Mr Atkinson (Distribution of Products, p. 350), J pint of milk, ljoz. to 2oz. of butter, and a scrap of cheese, at a fraction under 5 cents (2Jd) per day per adult.

At dairy farmers' prices for 1886-7 this amounts to 2d a day (milk, 3£d a quart ; butter, 9d per lb ; cheese, 5M per lb). Reckoning our population as equal to 500,000 adults—2 children under 10 equal to one adult—we arrive at a consumption of £1,520,590, which, adding exports of dairy produce, £151,194, amounts to a total of £1,671,784.

Mr Atkinson's estimate seems to allow too little milk for children, seeing the amount of milk and milk puddings that they consume ; but, on the other hand, the official returns of our dairy produce do not give the amount of butter he assumes. These returns are cer¬ tainly worth very little, being compiled from the state¬ ments of settlers many of whom have really no idea of how much they are producing; but as I prefer to follow the statistics in all cases, I shall accept them, and allow Id a head a day for milk. This makes a huge amount for milk, but the work of distributing is very expensive, and much of it is done by the farmers. The total is only £5 a cow, against £S 10s in Victoria. The estimate will then be—

Butter £456,411 Cheese 105,297 Milk 879,292'

£1,440,000 PRODUCE OF STOCK.

The number of fat cattle slaughtered annually may be arrived at by taking the Victorian average per head, since we have no returns from slaughter-yards,

JT

I



mmem

11

and by the number of hides treated at tanneries. The Victorian average, allowing for private kill¬ ing, is about one beast to every four persons, which

^, would give us 141,000. The tannery returns show r- 135,000. Seeing that some of the hides included in

tannery returns will be from animals that died, I will assume only 120,000 cattle to be killed. The value of fat cattle, according to official returns, averaged from £5 to £11; so, in order to allow for cows and calves

> killed, I will take the lowest figure—£5. The annual / increase in value o£ the animals that are not slaughtered, ^ excluding cows, may be reckoned from the average

age, which cannot be put at over 4} years, even allowing that very few calves are slaughtered. The annual increase in value will then be more than one- fifth of £5. The total produce will thus be—

120,000 fat cattle killed, at £b £600,000 Increase in value of remaining stock,

excluding cows, at £1 496,000 Cattle exported, &c. 60,000

£1,156,000 The uncertainty of the data obliges me to put this

amount at a figure lower than I feel convinced it ought to stand at. 120,000 fat cattle is less than one- fifth of the total, excluding breeding cows altogether— we have no accidental deaths to allow for, because we are going on returns of cattle actually alive—and it is more probable that we should have, allowing for calves, over afourth coming into the butcher's hands everyyear. It is plain that if one fourth came each year, they would average four years old, and, at £5 each, would be worth £770,000, instead of the £600,000 that stands in the estimate

PRODUCE OF SHEEP. The annual consumption of sheep for food, judging

from the data already referred to in the case ot cattle, will be from two to three sheep for each person. The average price, according to the returns, ranged from 4s 6d for fat lambs and 5s for fat sheep up to 12s. The average value of sheep frozen was 12s, from which we must deduct the cost of freezing, and to which we must add the value of the iieece. The one will fully counterbalance the other ; but the average seems to me so high that I will not adopt it, but will put frozen sheep by themselves and allow only 0s, or one-half of that, for the general run of sheep kdled. The value



12

of a fat sheep being taken at this figure, and the average life of shoep excluding ewes being not over four years, the annual increase in value, exclusive of wool, will be put sufficiently low at Is. It will be much more than that for lambs, but in the case of old sheep it will be nothing at all, or in extreme cases a minus quantity. About one-sixth of the ewes will be killed, and their value for boiling down may be put at 2s,

The produce of sheep will then stand thus— 1,300,000 sheep for local consump¬

tion, at 6s 390,000 Sheep frozen, from export returns 288,000 One sixth of ewes at 2s 100,000 Annual increase in value of re¬

mainder (excluding ewes and sheep killed) 8,500,000 at Is 425,000

£1,203,000 As in the case of cattle, this result is certainly lower

than it ought to be. It only accounts altogether for 2,800,000 sheep, which is but a sixth of the number in existence.

Pastoral Produce, 1886—New Zealand.

Nature of Produce. Estimated Value.

Milk, butter, and cheese (equal to £5 a cow)

Cattle killed and increase in value of remainder

Sheep killed and increase in value of remainder

Pigs, half of total number, at £1 each Increase of horses,30 percent.of total.. Wool exported (Customs value) Wool used in Colony, from returns of

manufacturers for 1885

£1,440,000

1,156,000

1,203,000 135,000 75,000

3,072,971

07,679

Total £7,149,000



13

Victoria, 1886 (Mb Hvyter's Estimate).

*

Nature of Produce. Estimated Value.

Milk, butter, and cheese from 335,727 milch cows at £8 10s each

Estimated value of stock produced in 1885—

Cattle, 223,818 at £8; calves, 111,909 at £1 10s each

Sheep, 2,675,100 at 7s 6d each Pigs, 72,290 at £2 10s each Horses, 15,430 at £8 each

Wool exported in excess of imports Wool used in the Colony

£2,853,679

1,958,407 1,003,162

180,725 123,440

2,668,063 123,860

Total £8,911,336

Net Produce. Having drawn up his estimates of the value of

agricultural and of pastoral produce, Mr Hayter adds the two totals together and gives the result as the value of the produce of rural industry; but, though I am unwilling to differ from so high an authority— and one whom I have often suspected of being wrong, and in every case but this found to be right, I con¬ sider that before adding the totals we ought to deduct the value of the produce that is consumed by animals. The fanner does not make both the value of the hay and the value of the bullock that is fed upon it; he only makes the value of the bullock. This is so plain that Mr Hayter takes no account of the value of grass, be¬ cause it is included in the value of stock. On the other hand, probably the bulk of the oats and a con¬ siderable proportion of the hay are sold off the farm, and consumed in towns or exported. The problem now is, how much of this produce are we to consider as being consumed on the farm, and therefore counted in pastoral produce We have no data for deciding this, and we arc further hampered by the comparison with Victoria, where the production of hay is such a large and disproportionate item. The best I can do is to suggest that we should consider one-quarter of the oats and one-half oi the hay to be consumed on the



14

farm, together with all the green forage (though a good deal of that must be sold), and the whole of the " other root crops," which will be consumed by sheep and cattle. On this basis I will estimate the net pro¬ duce of rural industry, aiid if the process be objected to we can fall back upon the original table of gross produce for the purpose of comparing New Zealand with Victoria. The result of the comparison is to show a net produce of over 9J millions in New Zealand, and over 14J; millions in Victoria. To arrive at an idea of what this means to the farming interest, we must divide it by the number of persons engaged in the production. The numbers for New Zealand ore taken from the census ; the numbers for Victoria are from Mr Hayter's estimate Year Book, 18S6-7, page 57. The result of the calculation shows a produce per head of £149 in New Zealand against £104 for Victoria. If we adopt Mr Hayter's system, and take the gross product of both industries, we get the result of £161 in New Zealand and £118 in Victoria. Whichever calculation we take, the produce of New Zealand in proportion to the number of workers is far greater than that of Victoria. Low as our prices are, our pro¬ duce is so vastly greater that its money value exceeds that of Victoria by the large amount thus shown. Under these circumstances, and in spite of the great efforts that have been made to stimulate manufacturing industries in Victoria, it may appear peculiar that there is a larger proportion of agriculturists in that colony than here. The class " Engaged in Pastoral Pursuits and Agriculture" contained in New Zealand 11'3 per cent of the population, and in Victoria 13'8 per cent. Eut this disproportion is really only ap¬ parent itself. It is caused by a peculiarity which has constantly to be taken into account in this com¬ parison—viz., our large families : if w e deduct the " domestic " class from the total populations, and so get something more nearly approaching to, though still exceeding, the number of persous whose produce we can take into account, we find about 32 per cent engaged in rural industries in New Zealand against about 30 per cent in Victoria.

If the further question be raised of how is it that prices are higher in Victoria, I suppose the general answer would be, because there is a larger town population to cousumcthe products of agriculture. The fact is, howe\ er, that it is not a question of town population ; the whole population arc consumers of

X

V



15

s

agricultural produce, and instead of being more numerous in proportion to producers than in this colony they are less so, as is shown by the proportion of 11'3 per cent of agriculturists in Now Zealand against 13'8 in Victoria. The cause of higher prices is therefore not the superiority in number ot the con¬ sumers. The re il cause plainly is, that in Victoria more labour is required to produce a given amount of agricultural produce. The higher prices are simply the result of the lower rate of production.

The last point in this connection is that if the farm¬ ers and stockraisers suffer from the low prices, the rest of the colony must gaiu. The farmer, in the long run, cannot gain much from the superior product¬ iveness ot his land. Higher prices for freeholds or rents for tenancies, and lower prices for produce are the invariable result, but though the farmer may not be greatly the gainer, the community is, and the country \\ hicli gets the largest return to a given amount of labour is the country which, other things being equal, must be the most prosperous in the long run.

Before leaving this branch of the subject we must notice that the previous calculations do not include the whole produce of agriculture. There are some smaller items which have been omitted, because no account is taken of them by Mr Hayter. I give the results of my calculations about them, and shall add the result to the value of produce when I come to cal¬ culate the total produce of the colony. They are : Grass seeds, 1,072,922 bushels at 5s £208,230 Poultry, 1,679,021 head at Is 6d 125,926 Eggs (two for each person per week), Is 6d

a dozen 301,545 Rabbitskins (exports for 1886) 65,694

£821,395 In addition to this there is all the produce of gardens under one acre in extent, as to which we have no data, though the value must be considerable.

Net Produce of Rural Industries,

Gross agricultural produce Less one-quarter of the oats,

half the hay, and all green forage and " other root crops"

New Zealand.

£3,405,000

808,849

Victoria. £7,260,735

1,852,166



16

Net agricultural produce Pastoral produce

Total net produce Persons engaged in agricul¬ ture and pasturage Produce per head Produce excluded from com¬

parison

£2,596,000 7,149,000

£5,408,509 8,911,336

£9,745,000 £14,319,905

65,178 £149

£821,000

136,976 £104

y

The most important facts in respect of this industry are the stationary condition of the production of gold and the very rapid growth of the production of coal. With respect to the former, it remains to be seen whether the investments of foreign capital in quartz reefs will result in again raising the exports of gold; but so far as coal is concerned, the increase in the years between the last census and the one preceding it may be really called extraordinary, the amounts raised being 277,918 tons in 1880 and 481,858 in 18S5.

As there was no mining of any importance in Vic¬ toria except gold mining, I have compared the average earnings of all miners in New Zealand with those of gold miners in Victoria. The result is distinctly in favour of Victoria, but it is impossible to be sure of the number of men really engaged in the industry in either colony. The numbers given for Victoria are the estimates of the Victorian Department of Mines, while our census returns probably include a number of men who are only working a pait of their time at mining. The reason for this opinion is that in the mines of which we have particular returns—that is, practically, all the mines wo.thy ot the name that are in operation—the average product is £252 per head for gold mining, and £211 per head for all mines and quar¬ ries ; and if we exclude hoth the hands and the pro¬ ducts thus accounted for, we get an average of only £48 a head for the remaining miners. Thus in this case the comparison is unsatisfactory, but the value of total products is probably not far wrong, depending, as it does, on the export returns in the case of gold, and special returns from managers of mines and quarries for the other items. Kauri gum digging cannot be in¬ cluded among mining industries without spoiling the average, because the return per head appears to be much larger than is really the ease. The only diggers who are enumerated in the census are Europeans, but

t



17

4 \

\

it is known the large quantities of gum are the pro¬ duce of Maoris, which accounts for the fact that the produce per head appears to be abnormally high.

Value of Mining Produce, 1885.

Value of total produce Number of miners Average value of produce

per head Excluded from comparison—

Kauri gum, exports 1885

New Zealand.

£1,164,599 12,643

£92

£299,762

Victoria. £3,091,244

£108*

* Gold only. Mr Hayter's estimate. manufactories.

In both New Zealand and Victoria very elaborate returns of manufactures aie obtained, and if we can trust the figures we may get a very accurate idea of our relative positions. The commonest objection to the comparison is that we include numbers of small estab¬ lishments which would be excluded in Victoria. All the information that I could obtain from the Regis¬ trar-General's department went to show that this is not the case; that the class of establishments is the same as in Victoria. The comparison, however, made out such a good case for the manufactures of the colony that I could hardly believe it to be correct; so I tested the returns in various ways, examining the nature of the industries, the number of hands in parti¬ cular works, and the horse power employed. The result was that I concluded the comparison is a per¬ fectly fair one, and the best illustration of this is the amount of power employed in comparison with the number of the establishments. We employ 19,315 horse-power in our 2268 establishmsntB, while Victoria employes 20,160 horse-power in 2813 ; so that relatively our power is the greater. The comparison, however, is not quite fair until we exclude mines, which are put on a separate table by the Victorian statist; if we do this we reduce the horse power to 15,615 and the establishments to 1961, which gives an average of just under eight horse-power to each establishment, against just over seven horse-power in Victoria ; even this is not quite conclusive, because some of our power is manual, &c, whereas ouiy engine power is reckoned in Victoria, so I will compare the number of establish-



18

ments using engines. In Victoria there were in 1886 1409, and in New Zealand 815 using steam, 2S1 using- water, 66 using gas, and 44 using other motive powers. If we compare the number of hands per establishment we find 11 hands in New Zealand against 17 in Victoria; which, allowing for the very large works in Victoria, 3eems to show that the comparison is fair. With our widely sepai-ated centres of industry we have naturally smaller works and more of them. If mere shops where some industry is carried on had been included, our average number of workers to each establishment would be far smaller than this. Another reason for believing that our returns represent real industries, aided by machinery, is the high average produce per head, and yet another is that thinking over particular branches of production, such as dyesinking, I find they are considered too small to be taken into account, although we know that they exist in numbers which must make the total produce worth consideration.

For these reasons, the comparison seems to me to be fair, and accordingly I show the results in the sub¬ joined table. If you compare it with the statistics vou will find that I put dowii our total production at a smaller amount than is given in them ; the reason is that I have excluded mines because they are not in¬ cluded in the Victorian tables. The value of raw material is generally given in the returns of both colonies; but our returns appear to be less perfect, and in the case of "animal matters " and sawmilling I have had to estimate the value, which I did by tak¬ ing the same proportion as obtains in similar industries in Victoria and adding over £70,000 to the total to represent the probable excess in the value of our raw material in animal matters. In any case the value of raw materials given can only be regarded as roughly approximate. The value of the net produce in New Zealand is very high, but on account of the uncertainty about the value of raw material I cannot regard it as anything like exact. It will be seen, however, from a later table that it agrees fairly well with average pro¬ duction in other industries. The value of gross pro¬ duce is certainly too low, for several factories sent in no returns of their production (nor of their raw materials), and there is reason to believe that the returns that were sent in seriously understated the value of produce in some cases. The number of hands appears to be correct.

y

v

t



19

>

4

\

Produce of Manufactures. New Zealand. Victoria.

1885. 1880-81. Total value £6,713,000 £13.370,000 Deduct value of materials 2,980,000 7,997,000

£3,733,000 22,102 £168

£5,373,000 38,141 £140 Hands employed

Produce per head Produce or the Three Industries.

The next table show s the total produce* of the three industries we have examined, and the average pro¬ duce, which amounts to £146 in New Zealand and £111 in Victoria. But this £146 is not the whole result of these industries ; to get that we have to include various smaller items that could not be brought into the comparison with Victoria. When these are added we get a total of over 15| millions, and dividing this by the number of workers, to which we must add 1297 kauri gum diggers (there are really more, if we could count Maoris, but not enough to affect the present average), we get £156 per head. On making the comparison with Victoria we see that, taking an average of the leading industries, there appears to be no room for doubt that we are much the more pro¬ ductive. This being the ease, however disordered trade may have become, we cannot resist the con¬ clusion that our prospects are not merely good, but brilliant. Net Produce of Agriculture, Pasture, Mining,,

and Manufactures. New Zealand. Victoria.

Agriculture and pasture i, £9,745,000 £14,319,000 Mining 1,164,000 3,091,000 Manufactures • 3,733,000 6,044,000

£14,642,000 £23,454,000 Hands 99,923 210,207 Produce per head £146 £111 Excluded from comparison Agricultural £821,000 Kauri gum, bark, fungus,

phormium, and fisheiy produce •• 3S0.000

£1,201,000



20

Total produce of these Industries for New Zealand £15,843,000 Produce per head (counting kauri gum diggers) £156

estimated produce of remaining wealth- producers.

We have now examined what I may call the primary industries, those on which all others de¬ pend, and for which we have statistics to guide us; but we have by no means analysed all the production—we have still to account for that of the "industrial" producers, who are not working in factories, and for that of ordinary labourers. The only way to form any idea of the value of their produce is to adopt the system by which Baxter, Levi, and Giffen have endeavoured to estimate the national income—that is to take the numbers and estimate annual wages and profits. This system is even less exact than the one we have hitherto pursued, so, though I shall attempt it, I will not use it for comparative purposes, nor shall I lay any stress upon the results. The produce of the building trade is estimated by taking average wages from the official returns, and deducting something over two months for time out of work, allowing interest and profits at 10 per cent, on £1,000,000, and assigning £150 each to employers, many of whom are no doubt in a very small way of business. This is checked by comparison with the number and size of houses built, and such an allowance as I could make for the probable value of repairs. The result would be too high if we only consider the condition of the building trade in Dunedin at the present time; but remembering that we are dealing with the whole colony and the year 1886, I venture to submit it for criticism. The produce of the remainder of the industrial class is based on average wages, allowing £120 a head, and £100,000 for interest and profits. I have estimated the value of the produce of the class of general labourers at £100 a head, and have deducted half of them, because it is impossible to say how much of their labour may have gone to bring up the results of the industries for which the produce has already been estimated. The total, 20J millions, gives us an idea of the wealth annually produced—the wealth, that is to say, out of which w e pay the interest on our outside debts and support our non-productive members.

X

Y

*

te This content downloaded from 91.229.229.177 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 05:29:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


21

y

\

Income of the Colony. The total income of the colony is, of course, con¬

siderably larger than this 20.V millions, though it is really only the same wealth passed from hand to hand by the instrumentality of money. I have tried to arrive at an estimate of it by going through all the classes of persons in the census and allotting incomes to them, and have tested this by comparison with the average results obtained in the leading industries, and by whatever other tests I could obtain from the works of the leading statisticians; the result is, though I have some hesitation in giving it, that I think the total amount cannot be less than £30,000,000, while it may be considerably more. If we accept this estimate, we get an average income per head of over £51, which may be compared with Mr Giffen's estimate for the United Kingdom in 18S3 of a total of £1,270,000,000, or about £35 a head.

Estimated Total Produce of the Colony. Estimated produce of building trades

(2337 employers, 9355 employees) Estimated produce of remainder of in¬

dustrial class (less 8763 considered to be distributors), 19,794 persons

Estimated produce of half of "labourers and others," S521 persons

Produce of industries already given

£ 1,600,000

2,375,000

852,000 15,843,000

Total value of all produce £20,670,000 NOTE.

Since much misapprehension exists respecting the manufacturing industries of New Zealand as compared with those of Victoria, I append some tables to illus¬ trate their position. The " Comparison of Manufac¬ tures and Imports goes to show that we are pro¬ portionately, whatever the reason may be, less depend¬ ent on foreign countries than Victoria is, The table of " Manufactures and Corresponding Imports " gives some idea of the variety of our productions and of their possible extension, supposing outside competi¬ tion to be absent. The industries given are all those ot which we have special statistics, except iron and brass, which I cannot compare owing to difficulty in deciding what is to be considered raw material, &o. Iron and brass manufactories produce to the value of £351,739, but the imports are considerably greater. Printing does not figure in the imports, because im-



22

jorted books cannot be said to come into competition with local printing to any appreciable extent. The value of earthenware imported is uot included.

Comparison of total Manufactures with Total Imports.

sew zealand. victoria. Imports £7,479,921 £1S,530,575 Manufactures 6,713,000 15,041,000 Excess of imports £706,921 £3,489,575

[The figures respecting New Zealand are for 1S85, those respecting Victoria for 1SS6 ; the produce of manufactures being estimated on Mr Hayter's basis— "Year Book," p. 484.] Value of Products of Principal Manufactures

and of Corresponding Imports. products. IMPORTS.

1S85. 1S86. Printing £273,886 — Agricultural implements 111,823 "£10,954 Coach and waggon building 128,346 3,195 Ships and boats 47,116 10,546 Woollens 194,311 104,993 3oots and shoes 276,725 157,445 Clothing 237,781 20S.852 .Furniture and upholstery 162,375 46,635 Cheese and butter 43,094 856 Flax 20,059 .— Cordage and twine 56,413 8,924 Cured and tinned fish 12,182 32,061 Malt 96,015 262 Coal 255,326 123,345 Flour and meal 754,830 17,277 Preserved fruit and jam 32,292 18,635 Beer 325,182 74,942 Candles 54,593 42,117 Soap 74,570 5,511 Saw milling, sashes, doors 1,177,713 50,662 Brick, tile, and pottery 91,797 615 Boilingdownandmeatpreserving 543,878 1,334 Tanning and scouring 634,915 55,974 Aerated waters 94,09S 2,875

Total £5,698,720 £978,010 *The value of agricultural machinery imported amounting to £28,000 ought probably to be added to this.



23

>

<

t

In the next table manufacturing hands arc compared first with the total population, and secondly with population, less " Domestic Class." The very material difference in the result is caused by the larger proportion of children in New Zealand. The table shows that according to the return of manu¬ factories (excludiug mines) we have a larger proportion of workers engaged in this branch of production than Victoria has. The returns for New Zealand are those of the census year 18S6. Those for Victoria are the

Hast obtainable—viz for 18S7. The population of Victoria is that of December SI, 1S86.

The Proportion of Manufacturing Hands to Population.

o O a O to to si s a a •-a

—

to T3 1 populatio ilation

less

sstic

class.

ds per

een

ial populat

3s per

cen

pulation, mestic

clas

a C3 p<a a o C3 * § Prt a H Ph a M

New Zealand.. 22,102 578,4S2 205,759 3'8 10-7 Victoria 45,773 1,003,043 468,332 4-5 9-7

The next table shows that, whether or not our manufactures are of the same high class as those of of Victoria, they have certainly been progressing faster, for it can hardly be supposed that our officials have been continually making fictitious additions to the number of hands. Proportion of Hands to Population at Successive

Periods. New Zealand.

a o lio rf a 3 At the

Census of Hands. Population.

Hands

per

c<

Hands

in Pop

18S1 15,644 489,933 3.1 lin 3L 1880 22,102 578.482 3.8 1 in 26



24

victoria.

Year ended March. Hands. Mean

Population. Hands

per

cent,

of

Population. Hands

in

Population.

1882 1886 1887

43,209 49,297 44,773

890,470 987,094

1,018,988

4.8 4.9 4.5

Iin20 lin20 lin20

In this table the population of Victoria is estimated for the middle of the year. The proportion of hands per cent of population is actually under 4'5, if we take the mean population, but closer to it than to 4'4.

The next table shows the proportion of the various industrial classes to the effective workers (population less domestic class). The comparison is made for the year 18S1. The industrial class includes workers in manufactories and all artisans, but not common labourers. The numbers of this class had increased slightly more than in proportion to population in New Zealand at the census of 1S86.

Proportion of Industrial Class to Effective Population.

Occupations. Numbers. Percentage. New 1 New- Vic¬

Zealand. Victoria. Ze'lnd toria.

Engaged in— Art and mechanic

production 18,692 28,065 9.7 7'2 Textil e f abrics.dress

and fibrous mate¬ rials 11,930 34,548 6-2 8-8

Food and drinks 7,063 15,277 3-6 3-9 Animal and vege¬

table substances 4,872 8,272 2-5 2-1

42.557 ' 86,162 22-0 22-0

Caston Steam Printing Company, JUanse Street, Dunedin.



«





Documents

The Wealth and annual production of New Zealand: [Paper read before the Otago Institute, with alterations]