FEDERAL TARIFF.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 288, 5 December 1929, Page 31

FEDERAL TARIFF.

PROHIBITIVE IMPOSTS. AN "EMPLOYMENT" SCHEDULE BITTER CONTROVERSY. ; (By the "Star's" Special Representative*) SYDNEY, November 11. I asked a well - known Sydney importer: "What do you think of the new tariff?" His face was as long as my armi but his irresistible tendency to jest overcame his gloom. "Taraffic!" he replied. Truly, it is a tariff of a staggering kind. To the great bulk of the people it is welcome, though vaguely disturbing; for experience of high tariffs ill the past has taught that protection is not an unmixed blessing, that it has in most instances to be paid for from the public pocket. But the people are tired of unemployment and hard times, and they Gee in the higher duties now to be imposed visions of factories working full time and full handed. It is an instant remedy, if not a permanent cure. There is no doubt as to the intent of the tariff. In the Commonwealth Parliament yesterday, replying to criticism on the part of the Opposition, which taunted the Government on doing nothing to reduce unemployment, the Prime Minister said his Administration had accomplished more in a week in the way of providing employment than the Bruce Government had in all its- years of office. "How ?" demanded the Opposition. "Read the newspapers," replied members of the Government. The inference was obvious. The new tariff, suddenly sprung upon the country, was the means by which employment was to be furnished. Manufacturers had made promise of additional output if given "effective" protection. There was no doubt the Government had provided it, and without any lose of time. The rest could be left to the manufacturers! Textile Trade. It should be easy enough for them. Imported textiles have been saddled with the staggering impost of from 75 per cent to 100 per cent. Immediately this was made known, one of the biggest importing firms here was reported to have cancelled its orders in many lines — in fact, to have notified that it would not accept delivery of goods already on the water, but would return them to the country of manufacture, rather than pay the extra f duty on them. Not very honourable business, if true, unless the firm had foresight to purchase only on condition that delivery would only be accepted in the event of the duty remaining unaltered—such an agreement, of course, being most unlikely. Cabling of this report to England provoked a blast of anger. Nottingham manufacturers, it is cabled, were "furious." It had already lost the bulk of its trade In underwear with Australia, and tills new tariff would kill the hosiery business with this country "stone dead." Nottingham manufacturers will accept no cancellation of orders, but insist upon delivery. Good for Nottingham.

"Giving 'Em Socks." But the manufacturers of hosiery here are jubilant. Already a fostered industry, it has made great, expansion and employs thousands of workers, who may fairly be said to make stockings and socks equal to the best. Already extra hands are being called for, in anticipation of a rush of orders for the locallymade article. Reports have been circulated that the hosiery manufacturers were going to exploit their higher protection by a rise in prices. This was given an indignant denial, and it was stated only to-day on behalf of the hosiers that there was "a distinct downward tendency" in prices, and that one small Sydney factory had received an order for 3000 dozen pairs of stockings, which would be made out of locally-spun wool. The-Cotton Industry. This at once reminds me of the condition of the cotton industry, which has long besMched. the Commonwealth Government for adequate bounty. It should find it in the orders of local textile mills. There is a present bounty of ljd lb on Australian cotton, but the duty of 3d lb on the raw imported material will be a tremendous incentive to growers to increase their acreage and should in time do away for all need of a bonus on production. The new tariff should remove what has been a remarkable anomaly. Last year Aus* tralia produced 12,000,0001b of cotton, but it was almost all exported to Liverpool for sale, to be 'bought later by Australian manufacturers and brought back here to be made into goods! It is estimated that the heavy duties on textiles will enable over 5000 Australian workers to be kept employed, who would otherwise have been put off" for a long (and unpaid) Christmas vacation. In addition, it is stated by the Minister of Customs, Mr. Fenton, that 2500 more workers would be offered employment immediately. Trade With United States. While on the subject of protection, the Press here is drawing pointed comparisons to trade to and from the United States. Last yeaf Australia bought over £41,000,000 worth of goods from the United States, and shipped that country only £ 18,679,000 worth—of which £10,000,000 was gold specie. The fact is emphasised for the benefit of the "Good Will Merchants" of San Francisco, who will now be with you in New Zealand, and who declared while here that they were anxious that their country should buy more goods from Australia. A heavy tariff against the United States, it is pointed out to the visitors, will not be a tariff of reprisal, but a tariff of eelf-preservation. Thu United States has just raised the tariff against Australian wool to 1/5 lb. This is a hard blow at Australia's greatest industry, and one which has suffered in the last few years to the extent of many millions' of pounds, owing to decreased prices. It is not likely that the present Commonwealth Government will submit to that without retaliating in a manner that will cause U.S. e exporters to "sit up and take notice' .