TARIFF INQUIRY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 207, 14 June 1933, Page 3

TARIFF INQUIRY

LOWER DUTIES DESIRED.

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY ATTACKED (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 13. The Tariff Commission heard further evidence to-day Allen Seaton Winton, managing director of Roneo ofhce equipment, asked for a further reduction in the duties on steel office furniture and certain office machines. He said that local firms manufacturing; steel office furniture marketed comparatively tew lines.

Mr A. E. Mander, secretary of the Manufacturers’ Association, said he would call evidence to show that two New Zealand companies were making steel office equipment as their main lines, and "representations would be made on their behalf. John James, managing director of G. Bromhall and Co., sought a continuance of the present taiuf of 27) per cent, on waterproof clothing. He » said that if the duty were continued ' his' company could increase its output and very likely reduce its prices. One of the difficulties confronting the company was the dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market at the end of the English season. Leonard Harcourt Labone, repiescaping Imperial Chemical Industries, Liu. (ammunition section), asked for a re duction in the duties on cartiidges, percussion caps, powder (sporting) an. zipp fasteners. In the case of the lastnamed articles, he asked that a duty of 50 per cent, be imposed on the foreign fastener. Witness said he sought ‘ protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Kingdom.

The Boot Industry. A. Mitchell, managing director of A. Mitchell and Co., Ltd., contended that the New Zealand boot and shoe industry could never become economical. This, he said, had been proved, for hi spite of bolstering up over a long period of years the number of factories was steadily decreasing. T ew, if any, were working on profitable lines because of the ruthless pricecutting going on among themselyes. Fully 50 per cent, of the mateiials used in the New Zealand-made shoe came from Great Britain, and theiefore it was more economical to impoit the finished article. Witness maintained that the New Zealand industry was being protected at too great a cost to the general public, who should be given an opportunity to buy footwear from England, where is was capable of being pro'duced more cheaply. Mr-Mander: You believe that if a New Zealand factory is not capable of producing at a price competitive with, that of a British factory, the New Zealand factory should go out of business ? Witness: Yes, in fairness to the public. Dr Craig: If New Zealand»were cut out, would you get any foreign competition P Witness: Not to any great extent. Professor Murphy: You suggest that the aggregate landing charges should be 30 per cent. ?

Witness: Yes. Do you think it would be a good policy to have a moveable tariff to combat currency fluctuations? —I do. You really mean than an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 per cent, is ,a fair thing?—Yes.

Evidence in Rebuttal. Evidence in rebuttal was given by H. B. Duckworth, managing director of Duckworth, Turner and Co., Ltd., who said that in the United Kingdom the union wage for workers of more than 21 years of age was 131 d an hour. In New Zealand the minimum rate for men who had served five years in the trade or who were more than 21 years of age, whether they had seivecl their apprenticeship or not, was Is gad an hour —a difference of about 60 per cent. In union boot shops in Great Britain female workers were paid 81d an hour for a 48-hour week, and in New Zealand Is 2d an hour foi a 44-hour week, a difference of 76 per cent. *