PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 10, 6 October 1927, Page 10

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

CUSTOMS BILL DEBATED RESTRICTING EXCESSIVE CLEARANCES VALUE OF RETALIATORY TARIFFS The principal happening in the House of Representatives yesterday was the second reading debate on the Customs Amendment Bill, which contains the schedules fixing the new rates of duty. Many members participated in the debate, and none failed to express sympathy with the Minister in the task set him by revision of the tariff.

In moving the second reading of the measure, the Minister of Customs (Hon. W. D. Stewart) stressed the clauses in the Bill which seek to place restrictions on excessive clearances from bond when an amendment of the tariff is pending and which are to give the Government power to impose retaliatory tariffs against foreign countries. He said that tlie bond clearance restrictions were designed to safeguard the Customs revenue against abnormal clearances of goods, especially those liable to heavy duty.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. B. Holland) : Is this the result of your experience on this occasion? Mr. Stewart: Yes. We thought there was too much disturbance of trade, and also that it is not right that heavy clearances should be made so that some people may make a big profit out of an increase in the duty. The Imperial Government has done something of a similar nature. They provide that some alterations in the tariff shall have retrospective effect, and they also have provisions' designed to prevent heavy clearances from bond. We are suggesting that in addition to preventing undue clearances in anticipation of an alteration in the tariff, we shall have power to collect increased duty on unreasonable clearances within three months from the date the new tariff comes into force. Mr. G W. Forbes: Have you heard of any definite cases? ■Mr. Stewart: Not of my own knowledge, but I heard of a case in Wellington where one firm, anticipating a higher duty on its goods, paid over a :heque for £15,000 on the day before the new tariff came into force, and then, to its horror, found that by waiting it could have got. off much lighter. (Laughter.)-- ‘ \ ' Mr. Holland : Did you make a repayment? ■ ■ ■ ■ - The Minister: No. (Laughter.) Retaliatory Tariffs. Mr. Stewart said that the clause which jave the Governor-General-in-Council power to impose special duties against :he goods of foreign countries would give New Zealand greater bargaining power in getting its goods into countries which discriminated against us or which imposed excessive duties on our goods. I'he application of the powers conferred By this section of the Bill would help io bring anv such countries to a reasonable frame of mind. The Minister also briefly traversed the other clauses in the Bill. He said the clause which gave the Minister the right to exercise his discretion in artificially increasing the measurement of imported sawn dressed timber had been decided on before representations on the subject had been made to him by recent deputation from the timber industry and members. ■lt was believed that the clause would remedy the difficulty in preserving the ratio of duty between dressed and undressed timber, but he had asked those interested to examine it and let him know if it met their requests. Mt. Stewart promised that a memorandum would be circulated setting out the reasons for the principal amendments in the .tariff, and he expressed the belief that that would help members .and the- country in appreciating why the changes had been made The memorandum would in some cases contain a resume of the evidence which had-been ■ tendered to the Tariff Commission. ... Members’ Views. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said the Minister’s task was of extraordinary difficulty in attempting to harmonise all the conflicting- views on the question of tariff revision. He felt that they could not continue to live upon the primary industries. They should embark on a policy of building up the secondary industries on the raw materials they had available. If the manufacturers of the Dominion received fair protection he would urge them to be satisfied with a fair return on their capital. ■ , Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) congratulated the Minister upon his achievement.. The line of policy adopted was distinctly good. It freed a large number of articles from duty that were not made in New ZealancT-at all, gave a fair share of protection to New Zealand industries, and at the same time gave the people relief in taxation. He was satisfied that the framing of the tariff was going to have a very important and beneficial effect upon the country. The labour organisations in the Dominion would do an immense service if they would inculcate in the trade unions and the people the duty of buying New Zealand goods. The farmers also had a duty in this respect. It was the farmer who was generally badly hit by over-importations. He was satisfied that the New Zealand worker was the equal of any in she world, and he should be given opportunities of better service to the :ommunity. The farmer was unquesiionably doing his part. Competition in the world’s market had forced him to improve his wool, meat, and dairy produce. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hnrunui) could not see that any new departure had been made in the tariff, wjiich would disappoint the many manufacturers who had desired more protection. He thought a Tariff Board should be set ip, and the Minister would be wanting in his-duty if he did not move in that direction. Nothing was done after :ach. alteration in the tariff to keep the industries affected up to the mark and to see that the promises made on their behalf were fulfilled There must be whole-hearted co-operation in this country between the primary d jecondarv producers and the workers. The Labour Party were supporting today what' was largely a protectionist tariff. He did. not believe tfie farmers as a whole were against assistance being given to the secondary dustries.

Sir John Luke. (Wellington North) said that efforts should be made so to improve wool-cleaning mach'nerv, that the wool when it arrived _ at Home would be ready for the carding process. The local industries should je developed to absorb a very large population. He supported the British oreference because of the common kinihip, and the fact that Britain was jnr best customer. The percentage of preferermf .. however, could very well be increased to 75 per cent ivhere British labour wa«s fullv employed ..in the manufacture. He was ppposed to very high protection, be-

cause it led to overlapping, and a greater output ..than the local market could absorb. He welcomed the proposal to admit British chassis duty free, and considered that the timber duties would have the effect of reviving that industry. The proposal to set up a Tariff Board had his support. Commodities From Oversea. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) said the general principle that should be laid down on the question should be that goods that could not be produced in New Zealand should come in free, while those that could be made in the country should be fully protected. In the latter case there should be guarantees of the public being protected against high prices. He favoured a Board of Trade rather than a Tariff Board to regulate that matter. The Labour Party was not fanatical with regard to either free-trade or protection, but was prepared to meet each situation as it arose. Some heavy increases in duties had been made on certain lines of timber, but he did not think thev would adequately protect the local timber mills. Foreign timber would still cofne in. He regretted there was nd suggestion to protect the coal industry from outside competition, and maintained that, in regard to timber, coal, boots, and woollen goods, it was unsound and uneconomic to bring similar commodities into the Dominion from thousands of miles oversea.

Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said that, while in favour of giving preference to England, he was not in favour of making the preference so high as to throw New Zealand people out I of work, as was itiow the case. There was not .a member in the House who had sufficient knowledge’ to compile a tariff that would meet all requirements ; and he advocated the establishment of an Advisory Tariff Board, which would not usurp the powers of Parliament. He was against putting any imposition on the farmers of the country, but he was not against a proper investigation being made by the Advisory Board in connection with the materials required in the carrying on of their work. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) contended that the tariff should be for revenue purposes. He claimed that the new proposal regarding maize was impracticable, and would do more harm than good. To placate the farmers it had been decided to allow crushed maize to come in free. Mr. Forbes: That was to encourage the pig industry.Mr. Lysnar (loudly) : Bother the pig industry! (Laughter.) An interjection was made by the Minister of Customs that other members representing maize-growing districts considered that the proposal was satisfactory. Mr. Lysnar: I think they are making a mistake. All it needs is the application of a little common sense. (Laughter.) Mr. A. Harris (Waiteinata) considered it should not be said that all New Zealand’s trade should be within the Empire. The Dominion’s future largely depended upon the extension of its own markets, and that could best be brought about by teciprocal tariffs with foreign countries.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) considered the only remedy for the present industrial depression was adequately to protect local industries from foreign competition. The House was still debating the Bill when The Dominion went to press. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PROGRESS ON BILLS In the Legislative Council last night the Dangerous Drugs Bill, the New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Bill, and the Peel Forest Amendment Bill were each read a second time and set down for committal to-day The Land for Settlements Amendment Bill was reported from the Lands Committee with one amendment, and the Fungicides and Insecticides Bill from the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee without amendment. Both Bills were set down for committal to-day. The Council rose at 9.40 p.m. AN AMENDED BILL AGREEMENT NOT REACHED. No agreement has been reached by the conference of managers appointed by the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council to negotiate in regard to the amendment made in the War Disabilities Removal Bill by the Upper House. The Council had deleted the clause which proposed to remove the wartime restrictions on military defaulters, and the amendment was opposed by the House. The Council, however, decided to adhere to its action, and managers were appointed to confer on the matter. The report on the result of the conference will be considered by the House in due course. LAND DISPUTES APPOINTMENT OF UMPIRES. The provision in the Land Laws Amendment Bill relative to the appointment of a Magistrate as umpire in cases of arbitration has been modified by the Lands Committee. Originally it was made mandatory that a Magistrate be chosen as umpire, but the amendment made by the committee suggests that where arbitrators desire to exercise their power of appointing an umpire, and cannot agree upon the appointment, a Magistrate shall be chosen. A petition presented to Parliament yesterday bv Mr J G Eliott (Oroua), on behalf of George Clerke, farmer, of Rata, asks for an inquiry into the treatment accorded him by a Land Board, and among other things for compensation foe being dispossessed of hi*