ENCOURAGING THE JAM-MAKERS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 35, 10 August 1921, Page 9

ENCOURAGING THE JAM-MAKERS

WHY IMPORTS ARE PROHIBITED.

The chairman of the Board of Trade, Mr. W. G. M'Donald, has in order to make the position quite clear, made an official explanation with reference to the recent Order-in-Council which prohibits the importation of jams and preserves from1 Australia.

It must be clearly understood, said Mr; M'Donald, that the Order is not aimed against cheapness of jam; the purpose is to prevent the injury of New Zealand industries by the unfair competition of bounty-fed imports. Australian jam-makers pay about the same price as New Zealand manufacturers for sugar, but in order to help Australian makers to develop an external trade the Government recently granted a refund of £20 per ton on sugar used in jam for export. Such a big reduction in price would give the Australian maker a very large margin of bounty to enable him to undersell New Zealand manufacturers. If the Government had had the statutory power it could have imposed a countervailing duty equal to the amount of the bounty, or it could have granted ' a bounty equal to the Australian amount,' but-in the circumstances the only practicable course of protection was by an Order-in-Council to prevent the importation of the Australian bounty-fed articles. Unless immediate protective action had been taken here, the Australian manufacturers would have benefited at the cost of New Zealand's' fruit industry. This industry is just now recovering from the difficult war years. At the time when it is hoping for betteriresults, it could not possibly face the killing competition of the Australian bounty scheme. The Government also has a stake in this industry, for it has advanced considerable sums for purposes directly 'and indirectly connected with the raising and marketing of fruit. Far from enjoying a bounty on export, New Zealand's jam-makers were subject to a prohibition against export during the period when New Zealanders were having cheaper sugar than people in other countries. This prohibition was imposed in order to assure an equitable distribution of the available sugar for consumption within New Zealand. ' If the price to Australian consumers was on a parity with the export price, the case would be very different, but Australian consumers have to pay prices based on the full price of sugar. As the rebate of £20 applies only to the sugar used in the jam for export, the Now Zealand Government was obliged to take effective action against a scheme, which would help Australian industry in a. measure proportionate to the injury to sMy Mm®, m tJie Bpjaieiesk