STATE DUMPING DUTY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 239, 6 July 1931, Page 11

STATE DUMPING DUTY

Effect on Farmers CONSIDERED ARBITRARY Dominion Special Service New Plymouth. July 3. The operation of a dumping duty by the Government upon goods coming into New Zealand and working adversely upon the accustomed practices of farmers, was severely criticised by Taranaki Chamber of Commerce members last night. It was condemned as a practice that the Government should take advantage of the exchange position between Australia and New Zealand, particularly as it affected farmers’ dealings in' bran, pollard, and other stock foods formerly admitted free of such imposition. It was decided after a long discussion to support the Auckland Chamber of Commerce in the protest it had made upon the same subject. Mr. Gordon Fraser said the Government was adopting a very arbitrary attitude. and in his letter to the Auckland chamber, the Prime Minister had stated that reference to the courts could be had, but appeals would be made, and as a last resort, the Government would persist and seek legislation if necessary. The day had gone past, declared Mr. Fraser, when, while all were retreating through barbed-wire entanglements, further entanglements such as the dumping duty could be raised without resistance.

Mr. O’Reilly, Customs officer present, said that deposits were taken where the exchange benefit received by the New Zealand importer was greater than 5 per cent. ;that is. the Government would take all exchange over 5 per cent, as deposit. Mr. Fraser asked whether the effect of the dumping duty was to nullify the Act of Parliament admitting bran, pollard. and other such products free. Mr. O’Reilly said he was not prepared to answer that question. Mr. S. F. Burgess said in connection with flour that it could have been lauded at New Plymouth without the duty for £7/10/-; with the duty it cost £7/10/7 to land. i

The Government was always making specious statements to the effect that it was out to assist the farmer, said Mr. Blyde, but the way they did it was first to take the duty off and then impose another charge that was heavier than the first duty; that would hamper production very considerably this spring.