WITHOUT FULL INQUIRY

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 38, 13 August 1930, Page 10

WITHOUT FULL INQUIRY

When Parliament increased the duties on timber in 1927 it acted on the recommendation of a Tariff Commission which had made full inquiry into the subject and had presented a detailed report. The Commission recommended duties of 2s, 4s, and. 7s per 100 superficial feet on the three main classes of rough sawn large sizes, rough sawn, and dressed timber. Parliament raised these duties to 3s, ss, and 7sjsd. Agitation added the extra shilling or sixpence which investigation had not recommended. ■Without further investigation the present Government increased the duty on rough sawn timber to 7s 6d, and on dressed timber to 11s 6d. Now further increases have been made to 7s 6d for large timbers, 9s 6d for rough sawn, and 19s for sawn dressed. These duties are 5s 6d, 5s 6d, and 12s higher than the 1927 Commission recommended. Instead of 2s, 4s, and 7s, we have 7s 6d, 9s 6d, and 19s. We may well ask: What was the value of the Commission? It may be said, and with some justification, that circumstances have changed since 1927; but if circumstances have changed so much as to warrant raising the recommended duties by 137 to 275 per cent. — more than double in each case— surely investigation as searching as that originally made,is necessary. The Tariff Commission's report on timber duties covered (with various tables) some sixteen printed foolscap pages. The present Government has explained its reasons in half a column of type, with no information as to prices, imports, or production. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government has been persuaded by agitation. The interests: desiring protection have spoken with decision. The protests of consumers have not been heard because those consumers do not speak with one voice. We are not in a position to deny that added protection should be given; but we do say that the effect of the duties on timber-users has not been fully weighed. It is said that a guarantee has been given that local timber prices will not be raised, but this does not mean that building costs will remain the same in spite of the added protection. Users of imported timber will have to pay the new duties or use local timber, which, we may assume, they would iise now if the imported article were not lower in price. There will be a burden on the public, and it will press in a quarter where the burden is'already heavy—the cost of housing. Before increasing that burden the Government should have armed itself with facts ascertained in an exhaustive investigation.