ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 51, 28 August 1926, Page 8

ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIES

(To ths Editor.)

Sir,: —Under the above heading there appeared in your issue of the 24th August the address given by Mr. W. H. P. Barber, chairman of directors of the Wellington Company, which calls for more than a passing note. It is not the writer's intention to question the judiciousness or otherwise of what constitutes an excessive quantity, or value for the softgoods trade to import, but it must be'patent to the majority that if Mr. Barber and other cloth and clothing.mahufacj turers have thir way clothing prices i will advance considerably, and the publice will Buffer accordingly. The argument put forward that to increase the duty on competitive lines of British manufactured' apparel would | enable the New, Zealand' manufacturers to sell similar goods cheaper, is a, daring statement and upsets all economic theories. Mr. Barber quotes America, but he does not mention the anti-trust law which was found necessary, to check the stifling of local competition, and its aftermath, the sparing of prices. It has now become necessary that the general public be warned against the propaganda that is being pushed forward at every opportunity by interested manufacturers desirous of having the New Zealand market for their-respec-tive goods in the hollow of their hands, and likewise view with alarm the ,trend of New Zealand's economic policy. Control boards to make our British cousins pay the top price for our exports, and if New Zealand textile manufacturers have their way "a tariff wall that will close this market for the goods manufactured from New Zealand raw material" surely is the limit of economic stupidity. New Zealand clothing manufacturers are receiving ample protection by the present Customs tariff: in fact, they are over-protected for the public good. Clothing is a necessity, not a luxury, and plays a part in thecost of living on a parity with food, firing, and rent.' Any happening that will.tend to increase the cost of clothing is of vital importance, not only to the breadwinner but to the State; therefore let us see just' where we stand as rogards British manufactured apparel. Apparel N.E.I, made in England, the ad valorem duty is 25 per dent., plus 1 per cent, primage. This equals 28.208 per cent, on • factory price, but this percentage is not the total protection that the Now Zealand manufacturer receives. In the price of a garment are included such items as overhead expenses, manufacturer's profit, and New Zealand agent's commission, and if the garment be a suit or costume, trimmings. If these are computed in their entirety, it means that the protection afforded equals 374 per cent. To land clothing into store per medium of the parcel post costs from 37J to 42$ per ,csnt.; therefore that is the protection that the clothing manufacturer receives, and not 12$ to 15 per cent., as stated in Mr. Barber's address.

To demonstrate more clearly, what this means, the duty and charges paid op an English snitof clothes retailing in New Zealand at £7 10s is equivalent to three-quarters of the wages paid to tho workers making a suit in a New Zealand factory that retails at the samo price.

To protect a necessity uncle,' the guise of fostering industry to such an extent as three-quarters of the cost of labour in its production is penalising the public, and leans one to the belief that it is now time that the Government protected the people against the New Zealand clothing manufacturer, and not, as suggested by Mr. Barber, to increase the duty on apparel.—l am, etc., ONE IN THE TBADE. 28th August.