“BETTER ABLE TO COMPETE”

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22340, 2 March 1938, Page 12

“BETTER ABLE TO COMPETE”

COMMENT ON NEW TARIFF

manufacturers express

SATISFACTION

That New Zealand manufacfurers had been placed on a better competltive basis against Imported goods, by revised customs tariff, was the opinion expressed by .Christchurch manufacturers interviewed yesterday. Where the tariff was criticised for not giving needed protection, the manufacturer concerned said that this was apparently an oversight, and praised the endeavours of the Government to help New Zealand secondary industries.

The president of the New Zealand Footwear Manufacturers’ Association (Mr H. B. Duckworth! said that in his opinion the footwear industry and the tanning industry would be helped by the increased protection to re-es-tablish themselves on the footing they enjoyed up to a 3'ear ago. As soon as the excessive stocks ot footwear at present held by retailers were disposed of, increased continuous employment shou,d be available to workers, and tne greater factory output should play its part in the improved prosperity of the Dominion. “The untiring efforts of the Minister for Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) and the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash), and the officers of their departments to give effect to the Government’s policy of encouraging manufacturing industries deserve the appreciation of all engaged in the footwear industry of the Dominion.” added Mr Duckworth. Footwear and Hosiery Satisfaction with the extra protection given the boot industry v/as also expressed by Mr P. G. Shanks, secretary of Suckling Brothers, Ltd., boot manufacturers. Although 21K per cent ad valorem on British imports—and not the 25 per cent, granted under the schedule —had been expected by manufacturers. this was compensated to a largo extent by tho provision of a minimum of 3s a pair. Tho Australian rate was satisfactory. The foreign rate of 55 per cent., or 6s a pair, was particularly pleasing. Manufacturers had felt considerably the competition in the lower grades of cheap foreign lines. In recent years large quantities of boots and shoes from Czechoslovakia had been landed in New Zealand at a very fine price. The manufacture of pure silk hose in New Zealand was put on a belter footing to meet competition from Canada by the now tariff, said Mr W. C. Fairbrother, managing director of Tudor Hosiery, Ltd. Provided people bought the New Zealand-made article he was satisfied that his firm could manufacture successfully under present costs with the help of the new tariff. It should he possible, with support, to extend the industry. The benefits would not appear immediately as the stocks hold were large. It was not possible to see the effect of the revised tariff on Australian hosiery without fuller knowledge of its terms. A Possible Oversight Although the absence of needed extra protection against the import of certain kinds of brushes Irom Canada was remarked on by Mr I. Woolf, managing director of Bunting and Company. Ltd,, brush manufacturers, he emphasised that in his opinion this was an unintentional omission on the part of the Government. Canadian competition with the New Zealand brush manufacturing industry had been unfair, said Mr Woolf. Canadian brushes had been imported into New Zealand at what were really “dumping” prices. The trouble was that a big Canadian brush-making corporation had been trying to “freeze out” its smaller competitors. Consequently Canadian prices were unfair. New Zealand brush manufacturers competing with imports from Canada were caught between the Canadian price-cutting war. and their own increased costs resulting from higher wages and shorter hours.

“However, we believe that the provision we need has not been made solely because the matter has been overlooked by the Government,” said Mr Woolf. “We know that the Minister is anxious to do all he can to help New Zealand manufacturing industries.”

"As the trade stands the new tariff should be sufficient to enable us to compete with imports,” said Mr W. F Myhre, president of the clothing trade section of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association. The tariff against Australian goods should be enough, but it was difficult to tell its full effect because in some cases the prices of imported Australian garments were not legitimate prices, but dumping prices. Even the extra tariff would not be sufficient to cover these special circumstances.

The position with the general tariif was slightly different. Where material was the smallest part of the cost of the garment—as with Japanese goods which wore made with very cheap labour—the imported article would still be able to defeat the New one. It would take a prohibitive tariff to place this on a competitive basis. Where materials comprised the major part of the cost of a garment, the New Zealand manufacturer was better off ' , pd was not much troubled by competition.

“CUT IN GUARANTEED

PRICE”

EFFECT OF ADJUSTMENTS FARMERS’ UNION SECRETARY CRITICAL (PBBSB ASSOCIATION TBI.IORAU.) WELLINGTON, March 1. Interviewed on the tariff increases, Mr A. P. O’Shea, Dominion secretary of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, said that they meant a further increase in primary industry costs, which were already too heavy. They really amounted, he said, to a further cut in the amount of the guaranteed price. “Evidently farming industries are being asked to pay for the 40-hour week,” he added. “The increases must mean a general rise in the cost of living. Trade unions will immediately set up a cry for increased wages because of increased prices and the old circle of higher prices and higher wages will go on until there is a crash.”

DECISION ACCEPTED IN AUSTRALIA

RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRY

(UNITED PESSS ASSOCIATION —COPTEIOHT.) CANBERRA, March 1. Thei Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons), in announcing the New Zealand tariff, said that though it was regretted that higher duties would mean some curtailment of the growing export trade in manufactured products, the Commonwealth Government could not question that the measures were within the ambit of the agreement, which the New Zealand Government considered necessary for the protection and encouragement of New Zealand industries.