MANUFACTURE OF SHIRTS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22464, 27 July 1938, Page 18

MANUFACTURE OF SHIRTS

More Protection f / UNANIMOUS DECISION OF CONFERENCE , • A meeting of independent shirt manufacturers at Dunedin last week agreed that the conditions in the shirt-making industry in Dunedin were identical with those in other parts of the Dominion. The meeting decided that efforts should be made to secure increased protection for the industry. At the conclusion of the meeting, over which Mr G. W. Lanham presided, the following motion was carried unanimously by the Dunedin manufacturers. “That we, the independent shirt " manufacturers of, Dunedin, endorse the action being taken by the shirt group manufacturers of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and their efforts to obtain further protection for the shirt industry.” That an increase in tariffs was not wanted because they did not attempt to compete with the lower-grade products of Great Britain, and that the slackness in the trade was caused largely by over-importation in anticipation of rising costs, were reported as being the views expresesd at a meeting of the Importers’ and Shippers’ Association in Dunedin earlier this month. It was stated by Mr M. Hollander, chairman of the clothing group of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association, that these views were not shared by manufacturers m Christchurch, while he thought that the problem of the genuine manufacturer was the same in Dunedin as in any other part of New Zealand. To clear up any misunderstanding, shirt manufacturers met in Dunedin, and a statement ,of the views of the industry that were unanimously agreed . upon was made available to “The Press” yesterday by the secretary of. tha* Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association (Mr T. Hyde). The statement reads as follows.A Unanimous Industry “While there might have been various conflicting statements appearing in the newspapers from different sources in relation to the clothing industry, the attitude unanimously adopted by shirt manufacturers throughout the Dominion is extremely simple to understand and will show -in proper perspective the value of much of this criticism. “As in the case of other branches of the clothing industry, those engaged solely in shirt manufacture have formed themselves into a national trade group for the purpose of collating their views and submitting when necessary, a complete and representative case to the Government. “The advanced and specialised methods of production obtaining, in shirt manufacturing in New Zealand, have made it unnecesasry for the industry under normal conditions to ask for. much by way of protection. Colonial countries cannot compete to any marked degree with the olderestablished manufacturing centres. However, in 1933 the duty against the United Kingdom was reduced from 27i to 20 per cent. And the industry showed its efficiency by meeting this reduction without any disturbance in the competitive field. The Basis of Competition “The independent shirt manufacturers of New Zealand have presented their case to the Government, which is substantially as follows: “The Tariff Commission, which was set up after the Ottawa Conference, decided on the basis of competition for the shirt industry, which,the Government accepted, and the tariff on shirts, collars, and pyjamas from the United Kingdom was reduced from 27J to 20 per cent JSither that basis must be accepted as a fair one and the safeguarding of the shirt industry of New Zealand be adjusted immediately to it, or it must be admitted that the basis of competition, as laid down by the Tariff Commission, was ci false one* “Further," the Independent shirt manufacturers have given the Government an undertaking that, except for adjusting prices to new awards, when the shirt industry is restored to the basis as laid down by the Tariff Commission prices will not be increased. This means that the farmer, the civil servant, and the general public or, in other words, the consumer will not be penalised. The reason given by the independent shirt manufacturers was that with the increased- productions which would naturally accrue to the industry, production costs could be reduced, and some factories which to-day were accepting orders at a loss could accept these orders at the same price and ragke a reasonable net profit. Japanese Competition “The independent shirt manufacturers also informed the. Government that because of the increasing competition from the United Kingdom, on account of internal, costs having increased, orders for cotton piece goods, which normally were given to the Lancashire shirting manufacturers, were being placed in Japan at lower prices. The shirt manufacturers were forced into this position in order to be able to compete more effectively with imported garments. This not only meant loss of business to the shirting manufacturers in Lancashire, but also to allied trades, such as packing case manufacturers, employment for clerks, typists, warehouse packers; also, loss of freights, to. British railway companies from the mills to the ship’s side and, filially, loss of freights to British shipping companies from England to New Zealand. The independent shirt manufacturers were unanimous in their statements that 100 per cent, of the cotton piece goods consumed should be placed with the English manufacturers,- as there was a large potential market for our primary products in Lancashire. “It is hardly necessary to add that the importers and farmers were given an opportunity for placing their views before the Tariff Commission, and there surely can be no objection on their part to the shirt industry being restored immediately to the basis t as laid down by the Tariff Commission ' and accepted by the Government. “Contrary to statements appearing in the newspapers, there is no difference of opinion amongst the independent shirt manufacturers in New Zealand, and their case has been presented to the Government in a fair manner, having had regard to all sections of the community. The industry is desirous of co-operating with the Government in employing to the fullest extent New Zealand workers and thus helping to solve the unemployment problem.” When this report was referred to Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the Canterbury, Nelson, and Marlborough Clothing Trades Union, he expressed his complete agreement. “I would pay tribute,” Mr Roberts said, “to the leading shirt manufacturers. They are the most efficient of any section of the clothing industry, and their methods of production compare favourably with those employed in Great Britain and America. This statement has my unqualified support.”