EMPIRE TRADE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVII, Issue 10744, 15 October 1926, Page 2

EMPIRE TRADE

“BUSINESS IS BUSINESS."

MANUFACTURERS’ VIEWS

(Per Press AssociationA

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. The question of the encouragement of trade within the Empire was discussed at the annual conference of delegates to the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Association yesterday. Mr G. Finn (Auckland) opened the discussion with the following remit: 'fliat in order to encourage trading within the Empire, this association recommends that the income-tax regulations be amended so as to provide a differential scale of taxation based on the percentage of New Zealand, or British, and of foreign goods used m tradThere were two great problems, said Mr Finn: how to trade within the Empire, and how'to secure the best prices for products and yet not increase the cost to the consumer. In a few days the Imperial Conference would open in London, and would consider those problems. It was all very well to talk about patriotism and solidarity or the Empire. The Empire must be bound together with something stronger than sentiment. . ~,. _ “Business is business, and patriotism is an entirely different thing. Ihe sale of foreign goods is mimical to the welfare of the country, and should be restricted' in tlie proper way, and this should not be hampered by sentiment. There should, he continued be a reasonable Customs duty. Efficiency m New Zealand would make for efficiency in other parts of the Empire. Protection must be the policy of! the countiy, but it must be based on sound economic lines. Some industnes were exempt from taxation, the farmers, for instance, and they could not do without the farmer. But they could do without the man who made his living by the sale of foreign goods Mr J. Findlay (Auckland) seconded Frostick (Canterbury) said that a leading Professor of Economics in Christchurch had stated recently that five years without Protection would see the end of the whole of the secondary industries in New Zealand. He expressed the hope that the association would be vigorous m learning all there was to be learnt regarding the secondary industries, and not give too much time to matters of little importance in the aggregate.

Against the Remit. Mr T. J. Burton (Wellington) said they should not put forward a remit to the Government without being cei tain that it was workable, lo put the remit forward m its bald state was 11C> Mr°L^ K'Paftridge (Canterbury) said ho was not in favour of the remit, but advocated Preference within the LmP ’l£r G. W. Reid (Dunedin) spoke against the remit, saying they should hesitate before lending their nanie to any scheme that was not practicable. It would arouse a howl of protest. “It would' be a two-edged sword, said Mr I. Woolf (Canterbury). In reply, Mr Finn said the remit would have a psychological effect on the people who were importing foreign had to consider New Zealand conditions —not the conditions of any otliei* country. He was in favour of limiting I retention to just what was necessary. They were “right up against at m the production of butter in competition with other countries and they Had to produce the goods at the lowest possible cost in order to liold the nitirket. There were 55,000 farmers puttine out dairy produce in New Zealand and what would happen if the Dominion lost her market? New Zealand was seriously handicapped by its distance from its market, and that handicap must be overcome by greater omciency. They were looking forward to the day when New Zealand would carry a population of nine or ten million people, and to do that the expoits must be increased. Nothing like 100 per cent, of efficiency had yet been reached in the Dominion. On being put to the vote the remit was lost.