Parliament CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 280, 23 August 1934, Page 10

Parliament CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL

Commencement of Second Reading Debate EXCHANGE AND SECONDARY INDUSTRY Presentation of Financial Statement This Evening The second reading debate on the Customs Acts Amendment Bill was commenced in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Bill, which contains the statutory authority for the new tariff in the form in which it is finally approved by Parliament, also amends in several respects the existing Customs law. Details or the Bill were, explained by the Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. " „ The discussion was similar to that on the report of the Customs Tariff Commission earlier in the session. The sliding scale of duties on wheat and flour was a subject to which severa, members gave attention. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, said New Zealand could not have effective preferential tariffs and increased foreign trade at the same time. To the extent that the Dominion developed trade with Eastern countries we must weaken our position in the British market. < Particular interest attached to a speech last evening by the Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Govt., Dunedin West), a former Minister of Customs, and one of the Dominion’s delegates at the Ottawa Conference. Mr. Stewart was of opinion that a reduction in the' exchange would have been more satisfactory, to English manufacturers than the adjustments made in the tariff. He stressed the danger of manufacturers relying on the assumption . that the present rate of exchange was to be permanent, and said he had already heard of a number of industries springing up on that assumption. Pie wanted to see industries developed on sound and proper lines. The Budget' will be delivered this evening by Mr. Coates. The Estimates of departmental revenue and expenditure will be tabled at the same time.

BILL WITHDRAWN Compulsory Attendance at Sunday School NO SUPPORT IN COUNCIL . 1 •■/ No support was accorded by the ' Legislative Council yesterday to a projposal to make attendance at Sunday School compulsory, one of the pro- ./< visions of the Education Amendment ..Bill introduced by the Hon. R. McCal- ■ him. In addition, the Bill sought to Vamend powers of school committees in ' controlling the use.of the school premises for purposes of religious Instruct tion. After unanimous opposition had « been expressed by a number of speakers, the measure, on the suggestion of the Leader of the Council, Hon. R., Masters, was withdrawn by its sponsor. In moving the second reading of the BUI, Mr. McCallum said it was intro- ■ duced because of a clause in the original Education Act,’ giving school com- , mittees the right to introduce the Nelson system of 'instruction, which required ./amplification; He took the view that probably the best system of education was by means of church schools, each 1 denomination conducting its own ' school, there being State inspectors to ./.see that a standard of teaching was . maintained. In the past, a number of bigots on school committees had refused to allow school buildings* to be used for certain religious purposes. The present Act gave the boards no say in the matter; it lay with the eommit'f_ tees. His purpose was to give full use of school buildings to religious denominations for teaching the children. In •i other countries he believed that subsi- . dies were given to denominational schools outside of the ordinary system of education. •If New Zealand went / to the length of allowing anything more ? than the ‘Nelson system it would have to subsidise private schools as well as maintaining the public, ones. No Compulsion by State. “ He was adverse to the State taking any part in compelling a child to attend Sunday school; that was a matter for the church itself. In his Bill, the ■ ’ whole power was given to truant officers appointed by the various denominations. It was not the intention of the ~ Bill to'force religion upon anybody. If that impression had been formed, he wanted to correct it. The Hon. F. Waite: Will Communist children have to go to Communist Sunday schools? Mr. McCallum: Yes, if they have them. There are so few Communists ‘in this country that I don’t think it would matter. ' Mr. Masters: What would you do with children whose parents have no church? Mr. McCallum: They are provided for. They are only compelled tb go to a Sunday school if their parents belong to a denomination which provides one. One large denomination does not provide Sunday schools for its children, ■ because religion is taught during the week. Mr. Waite: They are lucky children . to have a holiday on Sunday. Mr. McCallum said he expected the compulsory clause would be thrown out, but it had been put in to show it was his genuine desire that children should be taught religion. “An Abstract Proposition.” The Hon. C. J. Carrington said he was surprised to hear Mr. McCallum say that he had no intention to compel children to go to Sunday school. The compulsion would be there if the Bill were read In conjunction with the •principal Act. Furthermore, Mr. McCallum had not stated whether it was the churches’ desire that the measure „ should be introduced. It appeared to him to be an abstract proposition, and until, he had some concrete facts as to the manner in which it was to be carried out, he would treat it as such. A new principle was proposed: that Parliament should Interfere with the Church. He was diametrically opposed to that. The question of religion was one for the Individual, and beyond the province of the State. The Hon. T. Bloodworth said the proposal for compulsory attendance at Sunday school was almost too ridiculous for a sensible man to have anything to do with. He was opposed to taking from school committees any powers they might have in controlling the use of school buildings. The Hon. W. H. Mclntyre said he thought the proposal was absolutely impracticable. The Bill should be withdrawn. He had spoken to no member . of the Council in sympathy with it. , The Hon. Sir Heaton Rhodes said he r would have no compunction whatever ■ la voting against the Bill. Compulsion Id xellgiPiUS matters was repugnant to

him, and he believed repugnant to every right-thinking man in New Zealand. The Hou. A. Burns considered the Nelson system at present met all requirements in State schools. People could not be made religious by Act of Parliament. Mr. Masters, in suggesting that the Bill be withdrawn, said that none of the members of the Council wanted to vote out a Bill introduced by Mr, McCallum, but he had probably got a pretty good inkling of their minds from the debate. The Hon. V. A. Ward considered the Nelson system a very fair one. It gave the clergy of the various denominations opportunity to give religious instruction before or after school. He was opposed to the compulsory clause. Mr. McCallum then withdraw hia Bill.

DISTILLATION ACT Steps to Meet Modern Needs Amendments to the Distillation Act are contained in the Customs Acts Amendment Bill, introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday morning. The Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. J, G. Coates, when moving the second reading of the Bill yesterday afternoon,, said that the Distillation Act was a very old statute. With minor alterations it had remained in its present form since 1868. It was only to be expected that to meet modern requirements such a measure would lequire amendment. The existing law, said Mr. Coates, provided for the payment of an annual fee of £2 for chemical and naptha stills. Detailed supervision was not required, and it was considered that one fee was sufficient. Under the Act it was necessary that bonds given with respect tp stills, even by local bodies, should have two sureties. This was, of course, unnecessary and the amendments provided for satisfactory security. The present law also limited the size of wine stills. This had already been modified by Order-in-Council, but it had been deemed more satisfactory to have the provision in the Statute Book. The Minister added that vignerons in New Zealand were able to obtain spirits for fortifying their wines free of duty provided it was distilled in accordance with the Act. Owing to the amount of duty—4o/- per proof gallon—it was necessary, to have very close supervision over the operations. There was some doubt whether, under the existing law, there was power to collect such fees. The present Bill made provision for this. WHEAT DUTIES Current Domestic Values Power to determine the current domestic value and the f.o.b. export cash price of wheat and wheat-flour imports is given the Minister of Customs by a section in the Customs Acts Amendment Bill, the second reading debate on which was commenced in the House of Representatives yesterday. In his explanatory speech the Minister of Customs, lit. Hon. J. G. Coates, said that experience had shown that it was not possible to administer the sliding scale of. duties on these commodities without this authority. TOBACCO LEAF Trafficking on Increase Provision for the better control of locally-grown tobacco leaf after it is removed from the premises on which it was grown is contained in the Customs Acts Amendment Bill introduced in the House of Representatives early yesterday morning. The Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, when speaking on the second reading of the Bill.in the afternoon, said that it had been found that illicit trafficking in locally-grown leaf was on the increase. Provision was also being made to allow the storing of this class of tobacco elsewhere than in a licensed warehouse or a bonded tobacco factory, provided satisfactory security was given the collector. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL In the Legislative Council yesterday, the Wellington Bishopric Endowment Trust (Church of England) Bill was read a second time. The Church Property Trust (Canterbury) Amendment Bill was read a third time. The Council adjourned until 2.30 o’clock this afternoon.

CUSTOMS BILL Second Reading Debate Commenced AMENDMENTS TO LAW Authority For Imposition of New Duties Statutory authority for the imposition of duties in the form in which they are finally approved by Parliament is contained in the Customs Acts Amendment Bill, introduced in the House o£ Representatives early yesterday morning. Advantage has also been taken of the opportunity afforded by the tariff revision to make certain necessary amendments in the Customs law generally. The second reading debate was commenced when the House resumed in the afternoon. The clauses in the Bill were explained by the Minister of Customs, Rt. Hon. j. G. Coates. He said it had been stated that New Zealand should allow in free all goods from the United Kingdom which it was not possible to produce in New Zealand, but in no instance had it been suggested how the revenue should be built up. New Zealand’s tariff was lower than that of any other country in the Empire, lower than Denmark’s and lower than the- Netherlands’. Petrol Duty Refunds. Extension of the period in which applications may be made for a refund of the additional duty on motor-spirits used by commercial fishing vessels and aeroplanes is contained in the', Bill. In explaining the clause, Mr. Coates said that under the Customs Acts Amendment Act,/ 1932-33, it had been necessary for application for a refund to be made within one month after the end of the quarter in which the. spirits were used. The present Bill extended this period to two months, bringing it into conformity with the period prescribed in respect of refunds on motorspirits not used as fuel for motor vehicles. So that the provisions affecting both classes of refund might operate from approximately the same date, it was proposed to ante-date the amending provisions in the Bill to January 1 last. The Bill provides for the remission or refund of duty to the extent of sixpence a gallon on motor-spirits shipped to the Chatham Islands. It also gives authority for the fixing of a lower rate of duty on motor-spirits manufactured in New Zealand than the rate chargeable under the British Preferential Tariff. The Minister of Customs is given power to fix the duty value of goods in New Zealand currency. The Customs duties are at present, generally speaking, based on sterling values., Trade Agreements. “In view of the settled policy of the New Zealand Government to enter into trade agreements, not only with parts of the British Empire, but also with foreign countries, it is considered that it will be more satisfactory if a comprehensive statement of the law to provide for all .likely cases is included in the Statute Book,” said Mr. Coates. He explained that the Bill specified the conditions precedent to the entry of goods at British preferential tariff rates and at rates lower than the general tariff in the case of goods from countries with which New Zealand had or might have reciprocal trade agreements. “It has been found in the past that it was doubtful whether sufficient authority existed to refuse the issue of hop-beer licenses to persons not of good character and reputation,” Mr. Coates continued. The Minister explained that the Bill gave him the necessary power to refuse a license,, at the same time making provision for a dissatisfied applicant to appeal to a magistrate, whose decision would be final. The Bill also provided for the reduction of the excise duty on New Zealand brewed beer to 1/3 a gallon. In view of recent applications from oil companies for the establishment of petrol bonded warehouses at inland towns where. Customs officials-are not stationed, the Government has seen fit to permit the establishment of such warehouses on the payment of certain additional fees. Mr. Coates said that the approval of such warehouses would involve extra Government expenditure in providing the necessary facilities and supervision. The existing fees were not sufficient to recoup the department and the Bill was framed to. provide for additional fees in all cases in which the cost of supervision was unusually large. According to the Bill these fees are not to exceed £350 per annum. DEBATE ON BILL Views of Opposition Leader Contending that “tinkering” with the tariff was ' a boneless business, the Leader of the .Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, who followed Mr. Coates, advocated definite control of trade in line with the requirements of the people and in keeping with international agreements. “The goods we require and cannot produce,” he said, “should be admitted free of duty, while we should be prepared to go any lengths to protect industries that can be reasonably developed in the Dominion.’’ Mr. Savage said that the Government appeared to have no definite plan that would be helpful in' the future development of the industrial life of New Zealand. In view of the rapid industrial development in various countries, particularly in the East, it seemed certain that to rely upon the Customs tariff for the protection of New Zealand industries was to rely upon a worn-out theory. There was scarcely a line of merchandise that was not at present being produced in the East at prices that would make successful competition by New Zealand manufacturers out of the question without reducing New Zealand living standards to the levels of the East. There was a similar tendency in all countries owing to the introduction of modern methods of wealth production and the inability of the people with their limited money incomes to purchase that increasing wealth. “Whether we like it or not, the lesson that we must, learn is that the time has come for definite control of trade in line with the requirements of our people and in keeping with international trade agreements,” Mr. Savage said. “The problem facing, us cannot be solved by tariffs. That method belongs to a bygone age. Neither protection nor free trade alone will solve our economic problems. If the people of the Dominion were in receipt of money incomes which .would, equate the value

of their total production, the more they obtained from abroad in return for their exports the richer they would be. It would not. matter to them whether the goods came from the East or from the West. In plain words, the average citizen must rely upon wages in order to be able to buy his or her share of what is available for purchase. Extraordinary Contradiction. "Purchasing power being in short supply, we are faced with the most extraordinary of all contradictions : The less we take from abroad in return for our exports the happier we seem to be, because we have a ‘favourable balance of trade,’ it takes longer for the inevitable glut in the market to accumulate, and the period between industrial crises is extended. A country’s home and foreign trade cannot, for any considerable period of time, exceed the purchasing power of its own people.” The people of a' country must be in a position to buy that part of its production which was kept for consumption in that country, as well as the goods and services that came from abroad in exchange for its exports. That rule might be held up temporarily by means of raising credits, but it could not be postponed indefinitely, otherwise one party to the deal must be giving its goods away free of charge. “We cannot have effective preferential tariffs and increased foreign trade at the same time,” Mr. Savage continued. “One must nullify the other; that is, unless we increase the buying power of our people. . . . One thing is sure and it is this: While Britain invests money in foreign countries, she must take their goods notwithstanding any appearance there may be of preferential treatment for the Dominions in the Ottawa Agreement.” Agreements With Other Countries. Trade would never be expanded on falling incomes. It could not be expanded on stationary incomes. It could be expanded when the people’s power to buy was increased. There was no other way. Britain had a pop-' illation of approximately 45,000,000, most of whom were consuming less than was necessary to make up a reasonable standard of living. It was fair to say that Britain’s consumption could be doubled without any appearance of luxurious living. “What would I do with the tariff? I would put it in the waste paper basket and I would enter into agreements with other nations,” Air. Savage said. A schedule of goods not produced in New Zealand should be prepared and placed on the free list from Britain. What reason could there be for putting a tariff on goods that must be imported? If local factories, having been brought up to date, could supply the local market. at economic prices, they should be encouraged to do so, OTHER SPEAKERS’ ! OPINIONS Mr. R. ycKeen (Lab., Wellington South), said the Bill was going to sacrifice many of the secondary industries. He thought it possible to make recibrocal arrangements with Australia to greater advantage than existed to-day. The consumers of bread were paying for over-capitalisation in the flour-milling industry. At the same time it was a mistake for the wheatgrowers to imagine their industry was efficiently organised. The industry offered scope for improvement. The grower should receive an ' equitable price for his labour,"but the consumer should also be considered. The Ottawa Objective. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Govt., Dunedin West) said that it seemed there was an impression in certain quarters that the Dominions, at Ottawa, were called upon to revise their tariffs and make sacrifices without Britain being called upon to do anything; but in point of fact, what actually happened was that Britain was entering on a protectionist policy, which was of grave concern to the Dominions. It was part of the objective at Ottawa to see how far the Dominions could get Britain to hold back her protectionist policy in their favour. Had it not been for the agreement entered into at the conference, certain duties would have come into force against the Dominions automatically. It was quite a wrong idea to assume that all the concessions were on the part of the Dominions. The Leader of the Opposition had advocated that all goods that could not be manufactured in New Zealand should be admitted free. Mr. Savage: Goods from the British Empire. Mr. Stewart said he would like Mr. Savage to give some idea of what taxation would be necessary to compensate for loss of revenue if lie abolished the duty on goods which could not be manufactured in New Zealand, such as whisky. Extra money would have to be found somehow. Where was it to come from? The Australian Tariff Board had laid it down that not merely must the tariff compensate the local manufacturer for higher wages, shorter hours, higher cost of raw materials, and overhead charges, but that it must provide a marginal advantage wide enough to secure to the Australian manufacturer the whole of the market provided merely that he was efficient. Mr. Stemart said he thought the .Australian attitude destroyed the whole effect of the Ottawa agreement. New Zealand had a tariff which enabled its people to hold their share of the local market and to increase that hold as they became more efficient, but they were not protected from all competition. He was anxious to see local industries ex’pand on sane arid sound grounds, and not on grounds that might afterward fall away from under them. Mr. Stewart said a point he wished to make was the effect of the exchange on thri manufacturing industries. He was very anxious to see, without discussing the merits or demerits of the exchange policy, that the manufacturers should not be lulled into an in•secure position on the assumption that the extra protection that they were getting from the exchange might necessarily be a permanent feature. ■ He had been advised that a number of industries was springing up under the shadow of the protection created by the exchange. That seemed to be an extremely dangerous position. In his view what was irritating the British exporter more than the tariff was the extra artificial protection that the New Zealand manufacturers enjoyed from the exchange. He believed the British exporter would be more satisfied with the removal of the exchange than with the alterations made in his favour in the new tariff. Mr. 11. ’J. -Armstrong (Lab.,. Christchurch East) said he believed cheaper bread could be produced in this country. More people obtained a living from the secondary Industries in New

Zealand than from the dairy industry. The only hope for the Dominion lay in the secondary industries, and a shortening of the hours of work. The secondary industries must be protect Gd. Captain H. M. Rushworth (C., Bay of Islands) said that there was no market in this country for the produce of the exporting dairy-farmer. It would take a population of 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 to consume the. output of the dairy-farmers. The primary producers had to send their goods to where they were needed and accept the goods of those countries in exchange. He thought it vital to the Dominion that she should have closer relations with the United Kingdom. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) criticised the retention of the sliding scale of wheat duties. He said that the industry was not efficient and that a burden was placed on the people. Mr. 11. S. S. Kyle (Govt., Riccartoh) said that Australia spent something like £4.000.000 last year in subsidising her wheat-growers, and Britain was guaranteeing 5/7 a bushel to wheatgrowers. New Zealand, on the other hand, could not guarantee her growers more than 4/6 a bushel. The growers received only 3/4 a bushel in the first payment last year, finally receiving 3/10 a bushel. Mr. McKeen’: What are you getting now? Mr. Kyle: We cannot get 4/6 a bushel. I got 3/6 a bushel this year. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Govt.. Waitomo). The House rose at 10.20 p.m. JOINT COMMITTEES Reply to Prime Minister Referring to adverse comment made by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, on the suggested establishment of grand or joint committees representing both Houses of Parliament, the Hon. J, A. Hanan, chairman of committees of the Legislative Council, said yesterday that Mr. Forbes must have overlooked the fact that some such committees were already in operation and that power was given in the standing orders for certain other committees to meet jointly. The Prime Minister had said that the two Houses were separate entities and that Mr. Hanan’s proposition, as far as it concerned the House of Representatives, was absurd. “Any person acquainted with the standing orders,” Mr. Hanan said, “would know that power is already provided for certain committees from each House to meet together. Some of these, including the joint committee on Bills, the joint committee on standing orders on private Bills, and the joint library committee, regularly meet together. Others, including the agricultural and pastoral committees, the local Bills committees, and the statutes revision committees, have authority to meet as joint committees.” ' Mr. Hanan added that, what he had urged was the extension and wider recognition of this practice.

Notice of his intention to introduce a Gaming Amendment Bill providing for the double totalisntor and the publication of dividends was given by the Hon. E. R. Davis in the Legislative Council yesterday.