TIMBER DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 38, 13 August 1930, Page 7

TIMBER DUTIES

MEMBERS' CRITICISM

BEIGES INCREASE 2

MR. FORBES'S ASSURANCE

The Customs resolutions introduced in the House of RepreseiUati.veslfist night (reported elsewhere in this issue) were passed after about three hours' discussion. The greater part of the1 criticism from the Opposition benches was devoted to ihe increase in the timber duties, ihe fear being expressed that building costs would be affected, but. the Prime Minister stated that an assurance had been given that the price of-local timber -would not be raised, and that to safeguard the consumers from exploitation power was being put on the Statute Book.

;Spealting.-to. the motion that Uie tariff resolutions be .'agreed to, tli ■ Leader of the Oppositioa (the Eight Hon. J. G. Goates) asked: what the effect of the increased-- duty on spirits was likely to .. be,? especially, in regard, to the bottling of,spirits in New Zealand. Ho asked if ths Prime Minister had rcceircd any uiidertaking from the aawmillers that ; titiiber.1 prices ,-n-ould not be increased. Beplying to general questions, the Prime Minister (the Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that on tlie whole there would be •■ a- slight increase in revenue as the result, of the additions and amendments. There .had been an increase i:. the timber duty, but. this did not mean an increase of revenue, as ~tho extra taxation, was designed to give greater opportunities to. the New Zealand sawmiller. . The. estimated increase as the •result, of the new duties on spirits was £10;000*—on the assumption that the eo'nsunvption did not decrease. Mr. B. A.! "Wright (Beforin, Wellingtoa'Suburbs) asked if the Prime Minister: Btill thought that the yield from the duty on tobacco would bo £150,----000.; He "had been informed that it ■would be more like £220,000. Mr..rorbes:- "I think that's rather ' optimistic;" .. ; . .^Referring to. the. timber industry, Mr. Wright said'he was concerned whether the increased .duties on tinibor .would not 'increase the cost of building. One Tvohdored'whether there was something radically wrong with the timber industry, when it/needed so much protection. : A BIG STICK?. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont), sa:id that ouo began to wonder what consideration was given to the'first proposals that were brought clown; If they had been adequately considered there should not have been any need- for the amendments. He -wondered where tho timber tank was going to end. If they drove all tho imported timber off the market the cost of house building would necessarily rise. Of course, an increase would benefit •'tfie'Valuo of the houses on ■which .the Government had advanced, money. Were the duties intended to be in the-nature, of a big stick to shake at-Canada? There was no discrimination between Canadian and American 'timber.;,' and tht ._ House shquld be very careful before it swallowed the resolutions. Ho would vote against the timber incrcas' i. -! Mr. W..D. Lysnar (Independent lleforin,' Gisborne) said the .Government was "to be-complimented on'-tho effort : it ' was ''-making:, -.to meet tto> criticism ■ which had been levelled at the original proposals. Ho .hoped something would be,done to protect fhe public against : higher' timber prices. ■, Mr.-E. M'Keen (Labour, Wellington South) ;'said he was mainly concerned , about protection to the consumer. Protection was being given to industries in order that they might employ more labour, but the new timber duties would not increase the number of men employed 'in the sawmills. The consumer would have to bear the burden. Was it:: a fact that the American timber exporters were prepared to meet an increased duty of 7s? He had heard that this was correct, and the consumer had to 'be . protected from the merchants. The New Zealand tobacco firms were ", black-listing" some of the retailers - because they refused to fix -. prices: . ■ : ; Mr..G..C..'Black. (United, Motueka): •'The growers had nothing to do with that. They arc being exploited also." Mr. M'Keen: "Probably the middleman is making too much out of them." Her added that there was no doubt that- the tobacco firms were making _ excessive profits. ' WHERE WILL IT LEAD? Mr. ,D. .Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) «aid there was.not a particle of evidence to show where the increase iii the. timber duties was going to lead. There had been no attempt by the Government to sllo^v iiow the people would be treated.' He intended to move that the duty of £7 per ton on British cement be removed. • They had their construction and roading policies to protect. It was not yet too late for tho Prime Minister to place full evidence before.the House before asking if to adopt the'new resolutions. Mr. J.-O'Brien (Labour, Westland) said that a guarantee had been given by-the sawmillers before the increased duties were made. At the present time 4000 sawmill employees were out of work,;, and "the position was daily becoming even more serious. According to,- the' April statistics, the price of timber',had been decreased by 2s 9d per .100 feet. Mr. 'Jones: "Where is the evidence of the guarantee?" ' Mr. Q'Brien: "The guarantee has been' given, to the Government?" Captain H. M. Eushworth (Country Party, Bay of Islands): "Why_is it. necessary to have further protection?" Mr. O'Brien said that timber was being .dumped into the Dominion from both America and Japan. Tho crux of th© situation was that the whale of tho sawmilling industry was languishing, and required help. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Reform, Pa tea) eaidthat at the main ports it was costing £120 more to build a bungalow of New' Zealand timber than it did when foreign timber was used. In addition u-a £n!trantee. oi -rjice, were they also going to-have a guarantee iv resjtect to'grade? DANGER OF RETALIATION. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) said he wondered if the House realised that the increased duty on dressed: timber amounted to 200 per cent. If the timber industry required •protection to that extent there must be'something wrong with the industry. The increase against Canadian timber might be to the New Zealand'fanner, who wished to find a market : there. It was an important market, but it would not remain so if Canada; retaliated. Eefcaliations wen always dangerous. Mr. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino; said' there was about £4,000,000 invested';in the timber industry, and owing to the fact that the mills were not working at full timo costs were unduly high. AMPLE SAFEGUARDS. The Prime Minister said there would beyanvple safeguard in the Customs Bill against;" exploitation. The Minister was to' ha empowered to reduce the tlii'tfw -should the need arise. He be-

lieved that everything possible should be done to assist the timber industry. Mr. A. Harris (Ileform, Waitemata) said that iv the past, when tariff proposals were mooted, a Commission first made thorough investigations. If the present policy continued New Zealand would soon be the heaviest taxed country in the world, and the action of tho Government could not be -condemned 1 too strongly. On top of tho 19s timber duty there was a surtax of 5 per cent., I and it could-mean nothing else than I dear • building costs. j Mr. K. Senipie (Labour, Wellington East) considered that tho Government ' should look into the methods of dealing j with the timber. He was convinced! that some of the methods in the Dom-j inion were obsolete. He urged that :i board should be set up to make thorough inquiries. He did' ltot like the word "protection," and preferred a subsidy. Mr.' J; S. Fletcher (Independent, Grey Lynn) asked, whether the guarantee by the sawmillers meant: that to-day's prices were; to rule, and, it' they made increases, were the duties to bo removed? lie did not consider that long length Oregon; timbers should be included in the duty, as there was nothing in New Zealand to compete with them. ■ .' Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said New Zealand was in competition with countries which had high tariff walls against her, and New Zealand could not afford to stand alone. If they, did not. protect their industries they would reduce the standard of living of their own people. New Zealand was economically forced to follow the example of America. , Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) said the duty would bo substantially justified if it gave employment to a thousand or two thousand men. MILLERS HAVE NOT BENEFITED. Mr. C. H. Clinkard (United, Rotorua) denied, that when Now Zealand timber was used iv house building the cost was increased. It had been said that tho duties were put up a few years ago, but since then royalties had been increased by 2s to 2s 6d per 100 feet and railway freights had gone. up. Thus the millers had not derived the benefits they had anticipated. . . , Mr. J. A. Young (Reform, Hamilton) read a copy of the letter from the sawmill owners guaranteeing that tke price of timber would' not be raised. Captain : Hush worth considered' that the. timber industry was an uneconomical one. If timber was being dumped into New Zealand the Government could take other measures to cope with the position. ■ Mr. Young said that if the protection was being used to obtain a higher price for local timber/ he would not support it; but he knew that this was not the case. . .. . . PRECAUTIONS AGAINST EXPLOITATION. The' Prime Minister stated that the! Minister was being given power to reduce the duties at any time if there was an increase in the price of timber. They had had an assurance that the price would not be raised, but they 1 were also'taking precautions to see that the consumer was not exploited. The Government was putting a clause I into tlie Act giving the Minister the power to deal with cases of exploitation. ; Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland] Central): "A very good provision." j Mr. .Forbes said the sawmill rs had j stated that owing to tho increased output there would be a reduction in the j price. The Government felt that the industry should be given a trial. The mill owners had given an assurance that the mills .would be able to absorb more j men, and this was an important factor ; which had been taken into consideration j by the Government. , Mr. A. W. Hall (Reform, Hanrnki) , asked whether the Prime Minister I would consider the position of contractors who had tendered before the increased duties had come in. J Mr. Wilkinson pointed, out that there 1 would be great difficulty in obtaining long lengths. . ! Mr. Diekio said that the Government I should not only safeguard the price, but | should, appoint graders to see that the grades were maintained. Mr. D.M'Dougall (United, Mataura) said that assuming that the cost of a house would be increased by the dutyhe did not admit that it would —a man only built a house for his own needs once, and the increase would not be ereat over a lifetime. Furthermore, if Tie bought New Zealand timber, the money would be kept in the country. Mr. Poison argued that the duty would not tend to create more work. It would have the reverse effect, because prices generally would be increased.. He asketl ■ the Prime Minister how ho'was going to prevent exploitation. The schedule of duties seemed to be protection.gone1 mad.. He condemned the, increase on timber, and asked ■was it necessary to put a tariff of £10 a thousand super feet when it could-bo got in the country of its origin at £8 a thousand. Mr. Forbes said that if increases in prices were made the matter would be investigated by. the Department of Industries and Commerce.: It was not proposed to, set up an army of inspectors, as had been suggested. ■ The tariff resolutions were agreed to without further debate. •The Customs Amendment Bill giving cJfect to the tariff proposals as amended by the resolutions of 22nd July and further amended by the now resolutions was then introduced by GovernorGeneral's Message.