TARIFF AND COSTS

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 220, 13 June 1933, Page 10

TARIFF AND COSTS

Manufacturers’ Claims A FARMER’S QUESTIONS Evidence Before Inquiry MR. MANDER EXAMINED Lively exchanges between conflicting interests characterised yesterday’s sitting of the Tariff Commission, when practically the whole morning was taken up by the' examination of Mr. A. E. Mander, secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, by Captain F. Colbeck, who appeared for the Farmers’ Union. Mr. Mander, who gave liis evidence in chief last week, reiterated that on the whole, the. , secondary industries required a 30 per cent, protection in order to bring New Zealand into line with the Ottawa agreement. The chairman of the commission is the Comptroller of Customs, Dr. G. Craig, and associated with him are Professor B. E. Murphy, of Victoria University College, Mr. G. A. Pascoe, of Christchurch, and Mr. J. B. Gow, of IVhakatane. Captain Colbeck explained to the commission that the view of the Farmers’ Union was that both from a business and patriotic point of view New Zealand should do everything possible to increase trade with the Mother Country, and that at least the Dominion’s imports from Britain should balance exports. The Farmers’ Union en- • dorseci preference to Britain on all goods that she produced. Captain Colbeck then proceeded to cross-examine Mr. Mander. The first question he asked was whether there was a difference between the principles' of preference and Customs duties.

Mr. Mander: They are both a matter of policy. Is not the United Kingdom the only country which will take our products without restriction and has actually given us a preference? Doesn’t Britain provide our defence?—“l refute any suggestion that the New Zealand manufacturers are less loyal than any other section of the community.” Dr. Craig: Captain Colbeck did not suggest that. I “Cramping My Style.” , Captain Colbeck: No, sir. I would like to ask witness this question: Does he say that preference should be confined to goods that are 100 per centtbe product of the British Empire? Witness: I suggest that. Captain Colbeck: If that was put into operation there would be no shipbuilding. Professor Murphy: Captain Colbeck, you can lead evidence independently on these things. To screw reluctant questions from the secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation will not help the commission. Captain Colbeck: You are cramping my style. Professor Murphy: It is very necessary. captaiu. Captain Colbeck (to witness) : Yon say that if protection were removed we might support a population of a million. Were you in earnest when yon made that statement?—“l was on oath.” Were 'you in earnest?—“l was on oath; Captain Colbeck. You insult me when you say that.” Wages and Costs. Replying to a further question, witness said that .very t often. Customs duties had the effect of reducing* the price of the commodity to the consumer. Dr. Craig: Is it a fact that any industry in New Zealand has been destroyed since the duties were reduced last year. ' Witness: As far as I know no industry has been destroyed since Ottawa. ' Captain Colbeck (to witness): Would you be surprised.... > , Professor Murphy: What does it matter, Captain? We don’t care whether Mr. Mander is surprised or not, especially as- it takes a quarter of an hour to elicit the information. Captain Colbeck: Would you suggest how you can sell increased production when you are unable to sell what you produce at present? Witness: I don’t suggest there should be increased production unless there is an increased demand to provoke it. Don’t you think that if farmers’ profits were restored all our troubles would largely disappear?—“l don’t admit that.” . • If the cost of wages and services fell by 25 per cent, don’t yon think the manufacturer would be able to compete just as well as under a tariff? — “The answer is, ‘No.’ Wages are not the only factor in the cost of production.” Captain Colbeck: I am sorry it has taken me so long to maice my point. It is due' to the fact that I live in the country, I suppose. “Poor Ottawa!” / In reply to further questions witness said that on the whole a tariff tended to bring prices down, as had been proved in Australia. He refuted the suggestion that industries were clamouring for protection, and said that in some instances, applications were being made for reductions in duties. Captaiu Colbeck asked whether the secondary industries required a. 30 per cent, protection. Mr. Mander replied that, on the whole, this was .deemed necessarv in order to bring New Zealand in line with the Ottawa agreement. He was not mentioning a specific percentage. Mr. Gow: This is only a rough .shot? Mr. Mander: Yes. The individual industries will put their case before the commission. If anything, we are just a shade under the Ottawa formula. Captain Colbeck: Poor Ottawa! Professor Murphy asked whether currency considerations had been taken into consideration in the assessment of the 30 per cent, protection required. Witness replied iu the negative. This completed the cross-examina-tion. In the afternoon the commission heard representations by Mr. W. M. Paterson, director of Adams Bruce. Ltd.

Mr. Paterson asked for a reduction in the duty on unsweetened chocolate, which; he claimed, was in reality a raw material. He contended that the rate should be about half of that imposed on the finished product.

In reply to a question, witness said that at present unsweetened chocolate carried the same rate of duty as ordinary confectionery. The next witness was. Mr. Andrew Fletcher, director of the Fletcher Construction Company, who asked for the imposition of a duty on electricallywelded fabric on the ground that it interfered with New Zealand labour. The commission- adjourned until this morning. .