POINTS OF VIEW

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 224, 21 September 1934, Page 8

POINTS OF VIEW

TOWN AND COUNTRY.

DISPUTE IN PARLIAMENT.

DUTY ON BRITISH TINWARE. (Bj- Telegraph.—(Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Tlio town versus country isstie was raised in the House of Representatives to-day during discussion on a proposal in the Customs Act Amendment Bill to reduce the duty on British tinware from 2."> to 20 per cent, after October 31 next. There is to be no tariff reduction on the foreign article, against which- there ]«■ a duty ot' 50 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, eaid that people in the industry were concerned with the impending reduction in the ' duty, which threatened to cut away the foundation of the business. The Government was committing a grave mistake, and it was difficult to t?p;> the object behind the reduction. The industry was an efficient one, employing a large number of hands and it would be a tragedy if it were jeopardised. Farmer on Tariff Walls. Mr. W. J. Poison (Government, Stratford), Dominion president of the Farmers' Union, said there was no reason for the continual demand for high tariff walls round everything. A Labour Member: Pr.imary industries receive high protection. Mr. Poison: Wβ are able to live and compete in the markets of the world. He added that Labour members were asking for higli protection for practically ovety industry. The farmers were iK.t opposed to secondary industries, but they wanted to see reasonably low tariffs, so that if they were being exploited by the local manufacturer they could obtain their goods elsewhere. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Independent, Eden) said that Mr, Poison did not understand the value of the tin industry to the primary producer. The industry had been supplying the farmers with milk cans that were second to none in the world. According to Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon), the real position was that the Government was endeavouring to lower the lowest tariff wall in the world. When Labour asked for protection for industries it did not do so because it wanted high tariff walls, but because it was concerned with the bread and butter of the people. It was clear there was one rule for the farmers and another for industrial workers. Labour Members' " Music." "I suppose the birds in the early morning must get their song oIFV"' said the Minister of Finance, Mr. Coatee. "We are hearing all sorts of music, some pleasant and some unpleasant. The Labour party is still adopting its old policy of laissez-faire. They say we should leave things ah they are and why alter anj thing? Mr. Sullivan: The trouble is you are going .backwards. Mr. Coates said the tinware industry was big and efficient in all its departments. The industry had been built up under a tariff of 25 per cent, and in the judgment of the Government a reduction of 5 per cent was a reasonable one. He was sure the industry would be able to carry on without affecting the wage of one worker. An industry that had to cut down wages could not be called efficient. Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill): Then farming ie not 'efficient. Mr. Coates: You should stick to something you understand. Mr. Richards: I have worked on a farm longer .than you. Mr. Coates: That does not necessarily give you knowledge of farming. Mr. Richards: You don't stick to farming very seriously. Mr. Coates: That "is not my fault. The community says "You are the man we want." That may be unfortunate, Labour Members: Hear, hear.