N.Z. PRINTERS’ CASE

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27989, 8 June 1956, Page 12

N.Z. PRINTERS’ CASE

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS SOUGHT

(New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 7. General agreement with the case presented to the Board of Trade yesterday by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation and particular agreement with certain submissions were expressed to the board yesterday afternoon and today by the Federation of Master Printers of New Zealand.

“Protective tariffs are required to offset advantages enjoyed by Australia and England in particular, both major exporters of printed products to this country,” said Mr K. A. Picton, in his submissions on behalf of the printers. Larger populations in those countries made it economically possible to mechanise to a higher degree and spread initial production costs over a much greater output, he said. “Are you assuming that all you need to do is to show that some industry has started in New Zealand, its cost differential is so much, and therefore you ask for a tariff that will compensate for that adverse differential?” asked the chairman of the board (Sir David Smith) when Mr Picton completed submissions.

The board’s hearing is, at this stage, for the enunciation of general principles that interested parties consider should be followed for a general review of tariffs.

Sir David Smith questioned whether the printers’ case had been on general principles. Mr Picton said that all the items with which they were concerned should be considered on an over-all basis. He considered his submissions, and dealt with general principles, Sir David Smith commented that the standard of living depended on overseas funds, and the biggest users of those funds were New Zealand manufacturers. They were consequently interested in seeing that exports were able to maintain those overseas funds. High tariffs would increase costs to primary industry and reduce the chances of encouraging overseas markets against competition. Manufacturing industries would also have to export, in the future, in the face of competition.

Mr Picton said that the Printers’ Federation had not considered that particular point. To a certain extent much of the printing trade was not affected by either high or low tariffs. There were many large and many small printing businesses, but they were competing keenly with each other. Efficiency was constantly in mind, and printers were becoming more and more cost conscious. It was a service industry, as well as a manufacturing one.

RING TENDERS QUESTIONS ASKED BY BOARD (New Zealand. Press Association) WELLINGTON. June ,7. British industrial price rings were discussed at today’s hearing of the Board of Trade in its g neral review of the customs tariff. Mr A. A. Shenfield, who was being cross-examined bv the board on the submissions he had presented for the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, and the Associated British Chambers of Commerce, said that British Industry was generally internally competitive, and that there were few price rings in Britain. The president of the board (Sir David Smith) there had been instances of these price rings affecting New Zealand. He instanced the price ring on electric motor and tenders for heavy equipment which had been almost identical. Was this fair? he asked.

T x Shenfield replied that if it meant that prices for those things had been higher over a period than would have been charged under competition, then it would be unfair. He agreed that it could be a reason for reducing the British preference rates which New Zealand had if it was true that prices over a period had been too high. Asked whether there had been complaints in Britain about imports from low-cost countries benefiting under the Ottawa agreement, Mr Shenfield said the cotton and leather industries particularly had been a.~ected. However Britain considered the agreement too important to put any barriers in th way of the low-cost countries such as India and Hong Kong. He considered that New Zealand need not be asked to take the same attitude as Britain in this matter.

If an industry had established itself behind import licensing and was not able to exist without a high tariff when that was removed, then that industry ought not to exist, hJ said.