NOT SATISFIED

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21256, 30 August 1934, Page 13

NOT SATISFIED

MANUFACTURERS AND THE « TARIFF 1 3 j MR F. L. HUTCHINSON MAKES j STATEMENT i < "It is not right that the impression 3 should go out that we are satisfied," j declared Mr F. L. Hutchinson at the 1 meeting of the executive of the Canter- J bury Manufacturers' Association last ' evening, when commenting on the new j tariff schedule and the reported re- ] marks of the Prime Minister and the 1 Minister for Finance concerning the i attitude of New Zealand manufactur- 1 ers toward the new tariffs. "We are j very much in the position of a pris- , oner who has had his sentence re- • duced from 10 years to two years. We i are thankful that it is not worse, but i we are not satisfied." Mr Hutchinson read from an evening newspaper the remarks of the Prime < Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes), < who was reported to have said: The things that are beinf? said by the Opposition are not being said by the manufacturers. You have only to read the pamphlets of the Manufacturers' Federation to know that. The Minister for Finance (the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates), in reply to a Labour membcr. was reported to have said, Bin not saying that they are all satisfied, but we have had many expressions of satisfaction." "We will never be satisfied until the value of industries is so recognised by the Government that they become a foremost plank in the Governments platform," said Mr Hutchinson. He said that he wished to thank very sincerely the members of both sides of the House of Representatives who had fought so valiantly for the manufacturers' cause. Satisfying Ottawa Requirements A great deal had been said about satisfying the requirements _ of the Ottawa agreements and their interpretation by the governments of the countries concerned If the requirements of Ottawa were put at their worst — that local manufacturers should share the local market on a 50-50 basis with the importers, a view that was put forward by the Tariff Commission — the Dominion had satisfied the agreements before any alteration to the tariff was made, said Mr Hutchinson. He mentioned the boot trade as an example, stating that in the three years before 1930 the importations had been very nearly the same as the local manufactures. In the years 1927, 1928, and 1929, the value of local manufactures in the boot trade was £1,160,000, while the landed cost of the imports was £1,021,000. Mr Hutchinson contended that the figures showed that the requirements of the Ottawa agreements had been satisfied before the exchange rate was raised. He added that in the figures quoted by him the footwear importations included a quantity of rubber goods, of a kind not manufactured in New Zealand, but it was open to England and other countries to compete with Canada in this market. The meeting informally discussed the tariffs in committee for a time, and on resuming Mr A. M. Hollander said he desired to refer to Mr Hutchinson's remarks. The Clothing: Trade Mr Hollander said that Mr Hutchinson's remarks applied strongly to the clothing industry. The clothing trade had received a 5 per cent, cut in the tariff after the Ottawa Conference, and now it had suffered another 2i per cent, reduction. The figures for the clothing industry, like those for the boot industry, showed that British manufacturers were sharing the local market with New Zealand manufacturers in accordance with the "worst construction" of the Ottawa agreements mentioned by Mr Hutchinson, and there was no justification for the further reduction. The report of the Tariff Commission stated that the industry in New Zealand was an economic one. Mr Hollander said that it was a very desirable industry to foster because of the large Proportion of female workers employed. Out of 8000 workers 6000 were females. It was an ideal trade for a girl of about 16 years of age to enter and serve an apprenticeship, because at the age of 24 or 25, when she might be contemplating marriage, she had an accomplishment that would be of great value in the home. „ This important industry was facing dumping conditions, said Mr Hollander. Although the Tariff Commission declared that dumping was negligible, it was going on all the time. It was only natural that it should, because of the effect of the New Zealand season commencing as the English season closed. Australia had been faced with the same difficulty, and had overcome it by imposing a protective tariff. The clothing trade of New Zealand was not a protected industry, because the tariff did not protect it. Mr Hollander said that there was a distinction between industries which i would still go on without the assistance of tariffs and those which reI quired "protection." Provision of Employment "The reason for our half-pie favourable reception in Wellington was, of course, the amount of employment that our industries offered to the people of New Zealand," sa'd Mr Hollander. He said that he could prove quite conclusively that the bulk of the clothing trade in New Zealand had not been helped by the raising of the exchange. The raw materials of the in-

dustry were subjected to an lficreas# in cost. Wages were becoming steadily a smaller part of the cost of the industry on account of the increasing use of machinery. While the percentage of labour costs a few years ego was about 40, they were now about 30. "Generally speaking. I think we are right in assuming that we have nothing for which to thank the Government except that it gave us a bad fright, and then withdrew the cause of it, leaving some of us a little worse ofl and others not very thankful for small mercies," concluded Mr Hollander. Another member said that the hosiery industry certainly had nothing to be thankful for. The 24 per cent, reduction in the tariff would favour Canada rather than England. "We can go on discussing individual industries interminably," remarked Mr F. W. J. Belton, the president. He said that the coal industry was in need of assistance, and many were keen to see the production of fuel oil and motor spirit in the Dominion. "There are other directions in which the Government has slipped back into its bad old ways," he continued, remarking that the restoration of the 20 per cent, tariff on electric cookers was welcome. But why was it not 25 per cent, so that the industry was on a par with the gas Industry? Similarly there was a 20 per cent, duty on the piping used for gas, while electric cables, the equivalent in the electrical industry, came in free.