FOREIGN CHURNS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 16, 13 October 1927, Page 12

FOREIGN CHURNS

DUTY PROPOSAL DEFERRED

PROTECTION OF LOCAL INDUSTRY

MORE ABOUT BRITISH SEPARATORS

The proposal that a duty of 20 per cent, should be imposed on foreign-made churns provoked considerable discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday. Finally the Minister of Customs agreed to defer the item. He declined to make a similar postponement with regard to the item relating to other dairy machlndry, which was passed.

Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan), making his maiden speech in the House, appealed to the Minister o.' Customs to admit foreign churns free of duty, as was proposed in the case of. British churns. The company in which he was interested, the New Zealand Dairy Co-operative, viewed .with concern the duty on dairy machinery, which, he contended, would inflict a great hard ship on dairy companies. It was ■ essential that the . products of the dairy factories should be maintained at the highest standard, and this could be done only by using the best machinery. Danish churns stood out on their own for efficiency. Companies Satisfied. The Minister of Customs (Hon. W. D. Stewart) considered that the. dairy companies were quite satisfied with the new duty. Their interests would be protected by the operation of the clause which empowered him to admit either free or under the British preference rate any machinery or goods which could not be economically made within the Empire. The farmer members of the House were in the main agreeable to the new duty, and he thought that under the new tariff machinery would be obtainable more cheaply than under the schedule being replaced. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) said a factory in his electorate had protested that the new duty would penalise the industry. He contended that there must be a .clear understanding concerning the principle of .admitting machinery free of duty when it was manufactured economically within the Empire. < Mr. A. M. Samuel (Ohinemuri) suggested that as the matter was one of such importance, it should be held over pending a conference. Any extra cost for churns, he contended, would be passed on to the small farmer and a grave injustice would be done. This suggestion was supported by Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki), who moved an amendment accordingly. The principle of giving preference to British manufacturers was strongly urged by Mr. H. L. Tapley. (Dunedin North), who said that Britain was now making cream separators which,, he had been assured, gave very satisfactory service. “The best churn that is coming into New Zealand to-day is made in Australia with kauri timber,” declared the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. O. J. Hawken). Efficient Local Industry. The Minister of Customs said that the 20 per cent duty on foreign churns was not for British preference, but was for the protection of a local industry which was one of the most efficient and best organised in the Dominion. He had always understood that the farmers in the South Island were satisfied with the class of goods which that particular firm made. He had explained the operation of the clause already referred to to a deputation from the National Dairy Association, which also included the chairman of directors of the N.Z. Dairy Co-op., which, as a matter of fact, obtained their churns from Australia, and thus free of duty. They had expressed themselves as. being quite satisfied with the explanation and the protection afforded their industry. Removal of Duty Supported. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said that so long as the local makers had to compete, even against Britain, they had no reasonable protection at all. The safest thing to do was to remove the duty altogether. The Minister: We have power to remove it if necessary. The local manufacturers say the duty is sufficient. Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) said that if Australian churns could come in free there was not much protection for the local men. The dairy industry should get their churns free. Australia gave New Zealand mighty little preference in anything. He supported churns being free. Mr. C. E. Macmillan (Taurahga) said the dairy farmers he represented were satisfied with the Minister’s assurance that if a satisfactory churn could not be manufactured in New Zealand he would allow a foreign churn in free. The Minister had met them very fairly in regard to the tariff. Mr. G. W. Forbes. (Hurunui) said he would like to. know why. the existing

dutv of 10 per cent, on foreign churns had been altered to 20 per cent. Members had had very little information placed before them. Mr. E- A. Ransom (I’ahimua) said the proposed duty had caused general dissatisfaction in his district, and he had been asked to oppose any increase in the duty on dairying machinery. The dairy producers were entitled to every possible consideration and he supported postponement of the item. Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames) said that the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company was quite satisfied with the tariff proposed. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston) thought the matter should be left entirely in the Minister’s hands, when there would be no cause for complaint. Item Postponed. The Minister of Customs said if members wished for time to verify what he had clearly understood from the conference with the dairy company he was agreeable that the item should be postponed. The section of the item dealing with power-driven churns was accordingly postponed. Other Dairying Machinery. The second section of the item relating to dairying machinery was referred to by Mr. J. Mason (Napier), who suggested that some dutv should be placed on separators of foreign make in order to assist British industry. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) urged that this item should also be held over for a further conference. Mr. H. G. Dickie 'Patea) hoped the requirements of the dairy farmers would be properly safeguarded. Mr. W. H Field (Otaki) moved that the whole of tlie item be postponed. British Products. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates) said that the Government had considered the question of separators very carefully. They had found that £17,000 worth of separators came from Britain and about £44,000 worth from other countries. The fanner usually stuck to the separator he had been used to. It was not the intention of the Government to do anything but what was fair. After hearing all the representations made, the Government had decided to increase the general duty on power-driven churns to 20 per cent., and to make the other classes of dairying machinery free. Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) said the proposal emphasised the wrong done to New Zealand by the Downing Streetcontrolled British preferential tariff. The Minister said the last speaker was not satisfied with whatever was done. There was not a single item in the wljple tariff where the duty had been reduced on the New Zealand protected industries in favour of British manufacturers. He had agreed that the protection of the item should be postponed, but he could not do so in respect of the second section. The Minister of Agriculture said it was very easy in New Zealand to lose £40,000 a year through inferior separators. Until it was clearly proved that the British separator was as good as the foreign machine it was proposed to admit both types free of duty. He did not say the British machine was not as good as the foreign, but there were many farmers who did not wish at the present time to make any change in the tvpe of machine used. Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan) said that although great improvements had been made in the British cream separator it was not quite up to the foreign make, which the farmers were usecl to, and preferred. The second clause of the item relating to dairying machinery was agreed to, an amendment that it be postponed being defeated. SETTLING LEASEHOLD LANDS AN AMENDED BILL. In the Legislative Council yesterday, further reference was made to the Council’s amendment in the Lands for Settlement Bill, which the House of Representatives regarded as an infringement of its privileges. The Leader of the Council (Sir Francis Bell) said the question was one of considerable importance. The amendment dealt with the taking of leasehold lands for settlement purposes in the same manner as in dealing with freeholds, and the further question of compensation came under review. He did not desire to press the amendment, as it could-be brought down bv a GovernorGeneral’s Message, but perhaps Mr. Speaker might desire to consider the privilege question. The Speaker (Sir Walter Carncross) said he proposed to take _tinie to consider the matter, and it "was decided to further consider the message from the House of Representatives on the subject next sitting day. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The Legislative Council at its sitting yesterday passed the Counties Bill and the Legislature Bill, and at 4.20 p.m. adjourned until Tuesday next, the Leader stating that there, was little probability of further business being forthcoming this week.