PAINT AND COLOUR INDUSTRY.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20906, 13 July 1933, Page 10

PAINT AND COLOUR INDUSTRY.

RECLASSIFICATION OF TARIFF SOUGHT. JOINT CASE PRESENTED TO COMMISSION. [THE PRESS Special Service.] WELLINGTON, July 12. A joint case on behalf of the New Zealand paint and colour-making industry was presented to the Tariff Commission to-day. Mr A. E. Mander, secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, said that in a general way they were not asking for an increase in duties, but for certain minimums in some cases. They sought a reclassification of the present tariff, with the following duties: — (1) White lead, ground in oil, duty 6s and 9s per cwt. (2) Paste colours, ground in liquid, duty 20 per cent., or a minimum of 3s per cwt, British; 35 per cent., or a minimum of 5s 3d, foreign. (3) Distempers and kalsomine in powder form, duty free, if British; lo per cent, foreign. (4) Paints mixed ready for use. enamel paints, ship's anti-foulmg composition, paint thinners n.e.i., drieis ii.c.i., a duty of 20 per cent or a minimum of 3s a gallon, British 35 per cent., or a minimum of as Ja a gallon, foreign. . , (5) Varnishes, lacquers, Brunswick black, japans, lithographic varnishes, printers' ink reducer, terebine, goldliquid stain for wood, metallic paints, and liouid medium for mixing with the same; petrifying-liquids suited for waterproofing concrete, plaster, and similar surfaces, or for use as paint; fused gums for the manufacture of varnishes; preparations for removing paint and varnish --a duty of 20 per cent., British; 35 per cent., foreign. (6) Puttv and woodfillers. duty 70s per ton, British; 100s per ton foreign. (7) Dry paints and colours n.e.i, barytes, whiting, and chalk, free British; free foreign. Relative Costs. Mr Mander said that the industry had grown up in New Zealand under a very moderate degree of tariff protection, and, taking into account the relative costs (especially wages), of Great Britain and New Zealand, it would be impossible for the New Zealand industry to continue if its present decree of protection were reduced. The value of the plant, etc., in the industry was £152,233, and the output last year was valued at £156,969. The United Kingdom enjoyed by far the largest share of the import trade, and therefore the present tariff was extremely favourable to Great Britain. Furthermore, while exporting largely to New Zealand. Britain herself was importing for her own use a considerable amount of paint and its constituents from other countries. The amount of protection now given to the British paint manufacturer in the British market itself was 20 per cent. The money wages paid were more than 50 per cent, higher in New Zealand than in Great Britain. An important fact to be considered was that in Great Britain female workers were employed in the grinding mills, whereas in New Zealand this was prohibited. "We submit that the New Zealand industry does not at present enjoy that measure of protection (tariff compensatory for difference in relative costs), which is stipulated in the Ottawa agreement," said Mr Mander. "Nevertheless, our industry is well organised and efficient, so that we do not ask for any increase in protective duty under the principles of the Ottawa agreement, asking only for the imposition of a specific minimum in two instances in order to prevent this market being flooded by a low-grade imported product." Specific Duties Sought. Mr J. T. Spears said that the industry asked for specific duties, mainly as a protection against price competition, with which New Zealand manufacturers could not compete, owing to production costs, and because of a more potent factor—that they dared not risk liabilities originating from the production of goods that would approximate the quality of low-price imported goods. The local manufacturers, in self-protection, had to adopt and rely upon correct formulations, and use pure materials. It was not suggested that the seller wilfully misled the buyer, for in most instances he was ignorant of the formulation and the value of the material he was selling. In asking for specific duties, said Mr Spears, they were seeking a tariff alteration designed to provide public protection against cheap materials, and also against a regulation issued by the Health Department, which virtually enforced and certainly allowed a process of branding, which in effect very closely approximated technical misrepresentation. The regulation insisted that any paint containing 5 per cent, or more of white lead had to be branded in letters of a substantial size, to the effect that it contained white lead, and it suggested that cheap paints containing 5 per cent, or more of white lead could enter the Dominion under the guise of lead paints, and be sold in competition with 100 per cent, pure products. Dr. G. Craig (chairman of the commission) pointed out that the Customs Department had had difficulty years ago, when specific duties were in operation, in distinguishing the different classes of paints, and he asked local manufacturers to supply workable lines of demarcation between the various classes. Mr Spears said that he would go into the question. Questions Answered. Mr G. A. Pascoe (a member of the commission) asked whether the British manufacturers worked to the specifications of the British Standards Association. Mr Spears said that these specifications applied only to public works. English paints did not always suit New Zealand conditions, as the bulk of the paint used in the United Kingdom was for interior decoration, while in the Dominion it was mostly used for exterior. Mr J. B. Gow, a member of the commission, asked whether a specific duty would debar the public from obtaining cheaper paint. Mr Spears said that cheap paint was a burden on the community. It was mostly desired by country storekeepers, who desired to make a substantial profit. The local manufacturer endeavoured to keep the maximum gross profit for the merchants down to 25 per cent., but some of the country storekeepers wanted a margin as high as 50 per cent. Mr R. Wilson and Mr B. Smith aJ so gave evidence in support of the claims.