ONAKAKA IRON

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 17, 14 October 1927, Page 12

ONAKAKA IRON

BOUNTY v. PROTECTIVE TARIFF AN UNSUCCESSFUL PLEA TWO AMENDMENTS DEFEATED A vain endeavour to induce the ■ Minister of Customs to provide tariff protection for the Onakaka iron industry impeded progress on the Customs Amendment Bill in the House • yesterday, the debate lasting from the afternoon until. the supper adjournment. Mr. R. P. Hudson (Motueka) asked , for protection for the pigiron industry, which found itself up against the i production of coolie labour. He suggested a duty' on the Australian. lines —£l per ton in the case of iron produced within the Empire, and £2 outi side. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) regret- : ted that the moderate amount of protection had now been removed from plain sheet iron. The industry involved must close down. Mr.. H. . Atmore (Nelson) said that prior to the starting of the Onakaka i ironworks pigiron was costing £2 a : ton more than it did to-day. He supported the request, as did also Mr. ' D. G. Sullivan (Avon), the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. E. A. Ransom ! (Pahiatua),. Sir John Luke (Wellington North). Bounty Preferred, Tile Minister of Customs (Hon. W. D. Stewart) replied that the reason he considered it better to deal with the 1 matter by a bounty rather than by a i protective duty was because pigiron was the Taw material for a number of indusi tries. He . undertook to say that if a duty were imposed the door would be opened to the. other industries affected to declare that they had to pay more for their raw material.. He had much ■ experience of such 'cases. He had been told that there would be no opposition if the duty went on, but had found that ‘ immediately the duty was imposed there was adverse criticism from all parts of the Dominion. The reason the Government had originally granted the assist- : ance to the company by way of bounty : was to avoid the other industries hav- ( ing to pay more for their raw material ' which had then to come in duty free. The agricultural implement-makers were particularly affected. The secretary of ■ the company had informed him that ’ they were not afraid of the competition ; with the Scotch pigiron. The' Minister added that so long as the industry could be kept on a i satisfactory footing by the bounty he. was'sure it’was the wiser policy. * Tf, however, it were not for the , difficulty regarding the other industries I demanding increased protection it would be easier for the Government to con- ; sider the possibility of imposing a duty ! on an industry of such importance. A Dumping Duty. Mr.' Hudson said the Onakaka Com- ’ pany had'affirmed that if the duty were ■ imposed they -would be prepared to sell j their iron at a price to be fixed by the Goverhiiiehf. If the Minister would ■ give an assurance that the Indian iron would be kept out the company would j be satisfied. -. ' The Minister said he had been given to understand that the Onakaka Com- : pany would be satisfied with a dumping i duty , and the production bonus. ! ~ ■ Galvanised Iron. i Mr. H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s. Bay), referring to galvanised iron,, said, the need was for more houses for the work--1 ers. A five to six-roomed house needed i about one and a-half tons of iron, and it would keep the price of building up j if the dutv were retained. Mr. C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki) said i the galvanised iron was not a large one, and'the Minister was to be congratu-

' lated on the stand he had taken. Noj thing should be done, as the previous speaker had said, to put up the price of ; galvanised iron. I The Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) said that guarantees could ; only be given by manufacturers in regard to matters they had control over, : and if any company undertook that there would be no increase in the i price of their product, they were giving a guarantee that was impossible to carry out. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said what the Minis- . ter said was quite true. Manufacturers could only give guarantees in respect of what they had control over. But there could be legislative guarantees. Finally -Mr. Hudson moved that the • item of pigiron be withdrawn, with a view to the question of imposing '■ a dutv .being further considered. The . amendment was rejected bv 37 votes to 28, Sir’ John Luke and Messrs. Har- ' ris, Potter, H. Holland, Hudson, and For.svth voting against the Government. . A proposal bv Mr. Harris to delete ■ the item relating to sheet iron and corrugated iron was lost on the voices. The item was then passed.