TARIFF ON CEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 39, 14 August 1930, Page 6

TARIFF ON CEMENT

INQUIRY IN RECESS

When the Second Schedule ' was reached, giving effect to the increased duties, Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Can-terbury) moved that tho duty on cement should be reduced from Is to

Mr. Savage expressed tho hop© that the House Avould-not carry the amendment as the proposal was a most dangerous one. Ho wanted to know why the Reform Party now wanted to removQ a duty it had imposed itself. Mr. A. Hamilton (Reform, Wallace) said the duty had been on for many years, and it was not fair to say the Reform Party had been. responsible for it. He said the item had been challenged in 1927. Any member had j a right to challenge any item. Mr. P. Fraser. (Labour, Wellington Central) said if the . amendment were carried there would bo tho greatest consternation in the country.

The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. A. J. Murdoch), hoped the House would seriously consider the proposal; If Mr. Jones knew the importance of the cement industry in New Zealand ha would think twice before moving his amendment. •

Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour, Eaglan) said the cement company in North Auckland Was quite capable of lboking, after itself,, and- was in no need of protection.- He hoped the duty would be removed.1

/ Mr. Samuel also expressed , resentment at Mr. Savage's suggestion;;that, the Reform Party had put the duty on. ■

The Leader of the Labour Party said he held,the Government should have long since taken the industry over. He protested against affecting the industry' without notice being given, . '. Captain Bushworth (Country Party, Bay of Islands), rising Jin support of Mr. Martin's remarks, said ho was surprised Mr. Holland should have supported, the plutocratic shareholders of the Cement Company.

Mr. Holland: "I was defending the workers." . \

• Captain ■ Eushworth snid he knew Mr. Holland in his mind had spoken of the workers, but knowing what appeared' lin tho balance-sheet of the North- Auckland Cement Company he knew v-ery well that tho duty could be takeji off with out. affecting tho workers one iota. "A CEMENT RING." Mr. E. A. Wright (Reform, Wellington Suburbs) said that "there was^ a cement ring operating in New Zealand, and they had the right to provont exploitation. Was a company that paid £■45,000 per year income-tax likely : tp suffer from a reduction in protection!:! Tho company sliould bo taught a lessoii.

• Mr. G. 0. Black (United, Motueka) 'said that.tho'Golden Bay Company had only paid one dividend in seven years, and had stated that if tho duty, was 'decreased it would have to put off its mon. ■"'■'•■. ■

Mr. -"Wilkinson said lie liart it confess to being one of tho plutocrats referred to by tho member for Bay itff Islands. There w-ere 1300 men einploy'ed ,by tlio Portland Bay Cemont Company, which also owned a coal mine and supplied clcetvio light t6 tlio town of Whangarei. Ho had boon told that if tho duties were put ou two of .-the companies in New •Zealand would go out. The company liiid. repeatedly cnt its prices. The mover of tho motion had shown his inconsistency by voting fora duty of £7 per ton on flour. ... Mr. F. Langstonn (Labour, Waimarino) considered that the' duty could easily como off, but ho thought that tho .companies should bo given fair notice in order that thoy might have an opportunity to plaeo thoir caso before Parliament.

Mr. Jones denied inconsistency, but stated that he wag prepared to give

protective assistance to any industry. If there was the slightest danger 'of tl"* jobs of the men being jeopardised ho would not havo proposed tho motion. Ho. wanted to give cheapor cement to New Zealand, and the industry could stand the reduction. Eeform members •now realised that a mistake had been made by increasing the duties.

Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) said that he was not attacking or defending the company when he stated that the cement industry hatl the right to survive. It would be better for New Zealand to use cement instead of bitumen for road construction because such a policy would give employment for more men. The Minister of Health (tho Hon. A. J. Stallworthy) pointed out that the House, if it i>assed tho amendment, would really be breaking its agreement with tho cement companies. Ii was only fair, that the companies should be notified of tho intention of tho House.

Mr. Samuel stated that the Government did not notify importers of pending increases in the tariff, and he did not see why the cement companies should be singled out. However, he suggested that the member for MidCanterbury should withdraw his motion and- ask the; Government : go_ thoroughly into tho position. The Minister had ■ the power to reduce tho duty if ho considered that the . company was gaining, an undue benefit. The Leader of the Labour Party moved as an amendment to'tho amendment that all the words after '' that bo deleted, with a view to tho :nser- ! tion'.of the'-following: "It be a recommendation to the' Government that the whole position in relation to tho production of cement be investigated during the recess for the purpose of cer'taining whether or not a duty is neces-; safy for the preservation of the industry."

The Prime Minister undertook to have an inquiry made in the recess into the necessity for a duty on cement. i "

The amendments , were thereupon withdrawn.