BOOT INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 138, 14 June 1933, Page 12

BOOT INDUSTRY

EXTENT OP PROTECTION IMPORTERS' PROTEST

Tlio contention that tho protcc'tion afforded the boot industry in New Zealand was too high, and that the public was being penalised was advanced before- tho Tariff Commission yesterday afternoon by Mr. A. Mitchell, managing director of A. Mitchell and Company, Ltd. In his opinion the duty on British footwear, including freight and other landing costs, should not exceed 30 per cent. Mr. Mitchell said that he had represented a group of British manufacturers for over thirty years, but from the way they had been treated in New Zealand ono would think their productions were tho work 6f underpaid foreigners, instead of higly paid and efficient British workmen. The boot and shoo industry could never become economically sound in the Dominion, and this was proved by the amount of bolstering up it had received for the past 30 years, and by tho fact that only 111 moro operatives were employed today than twenty-threo years ago. The number of factories had steadily decreased from 81' seven years ago to 69 today, and very few wero working on profitable lines, because of the ruthless price-cutting going on amongst them. Footwear made of locally tanned leathers could be undersold by British manufacturers by 2s 3d per pair, even after allowing 75 per cent, to land. Fully 50 per cent, of the materials used in the bulk of New Zealand-made shoes wero imported, and therefore, it was moro Economical to import the finished articlet ' ENGLISH QUALITY. The quality of English footwear could never be equalled in New Zealand, because it was impossible to command the selection of materials obtainable in England. Notwithstanding a protcetion of from 45 per cent, to .75 per cent, during tho past two years, both tho number o~ the factories and the operatives had decreased, while the wages paid had fallen from £428,940 to £335,415 in 1932. In support of his contention that 30 per cent, was ample protection for any industry, Mr. Mitchell mentioned that whatever the goods cost to land should be taken into consideration when the Commission fixed tho tariff. Taking tho exchange at par, he advocated that a revenue tax of 10 per c6nt. should be imposed, ,and this, together with freight and landing charges, which would amount to 20 per cent., would give a total protection of 30 per cent., which should be the maximum. This would enable the public to purchase footwear of a superior quality from 30 to 40 per cent-cheaper. The manufacturers, by converting their factories into warehouses, would do enormously increased business by merchanting English footwear, and would so make profits unheard of by manufacturing. Thero would bo room for a certain number of factories which ivould admit that they could compete without protection. The remainder of the operatives would bo readily absorbed Vis warehousemen, etc. Imports would be increased, thus improving the shipping trade and bringing about a reduction in freights and a freer exchango of commerce between the Dominion and her best customer. The 10 per cent, revenue tariff would, enable the Government to double tho revenue it received at present. At least three manufacturers in New Zealand were able to compete in many lines with the English manufacturer a,t English invoice prices plus 30 per cent, for duty, freight, exchange, and other landing costs. . ■ '. ! SOME COMPARISONS. Mr. Mitchell produced several lines of comparative English and New Zea-land-made boots. Ho said that a New Zealand-made boot retailing at 18s 6d a pair competed with a similar English boot which was retailed at 15s 9d after i duty and other charges amounting to 75 per cent, had been paid.' The saving to tho public on the English boot, if j tho maximum protection waa 30 per cent., would be 6s 9d. In the case of. a New Zealand boot retailing at 37s 6d, tho English retail price was 43s 3d, but if tho import charges were reduced to 30 per cent, tho saving on the English boot would be 5s 3d. In the easo of ' the higher-grade lines, which tho New Zealand manufacturer did not make, there would be a substantial saving. .On a shoo costing 60s, for instance, the reduction would be 15s 9d. LABOUR-SAVING MACHINERY. Mr. A. E. Mander, secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation,, referring to tho statement that the number of employees in the Dominion had increased by 111 in twenty-three years, asked whether Mr. Mitchell was aware that a considerable amount of laboursaving machinery had been, introduced during that period. Mr. Mitchell said that there was no doubt that labour-saving machinery had been introduced, but it waa also a fact that some factories had closed down. Mr. Mander: You think that, if the New Zealand manufacturer cannot compote with tho British manufacturer, he should go out of business? Mr. Mitchell: Yes, if he cannot compete with 30 per cent, protection, ho should go out, in fairness to the* public. Mr. Mander: Where will New Zealand get her boots from? Mr. Mitchell: From imports. Mr. Mander: You will recognise that the amount of imports is governed by tho limit of the exports in sterling? Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Professor Murphy (to Mr. Mander): You can ask him if the exports are limited by the imports, or you can answer it yourself if you can. Mr. Mander: Have you reduced the prico of boots since the reduction of tho duty consequent on tho Ottawa Conference? Mr. Mitchell said that ho was not a retailer, but as far as lie knew tho retailer charged 33 1-3 per cent, on thewholesale price, and if the price had been reduced tho public would have benefited. Boon after the surtax had been lifted tho exchange iate had been lifted. - ' .• Mr. Mander asked whether the witness realised that New Zealand could buy boots more cheaply from foreign countries. Mr. Mitchell replied that this would not bo so if Britain was given tho usual preference. Tho chairman (Dr. G. Craig): Who aro your chief competitors? Mr. Mitchell: I should s^y that New Zealand is our principal competitor. Dr. Craig: If the New Zealand competition was cut out would you have competition from English houses? Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Mr. Cr. A. Pascoo asked whether they experienced any competition from Australia. ' . 'Mr. Mitchell: Yes, in Australia they uso a greater percentage of local material than they do in New Zealand. Professor Murphy drew, the witness's attention to his contention that 30 per cent was sufficient protection, and asked whether ho had taken into account the exchange rate. Mr. Mitchell said that ho suggested a sliding tariff which would make the total protection 30 per cent, above tho landed cost. Mr. Harry Burroughs Duckworth, of Duckworth, Turner, and Company, Ltd., Christchurch, said that his iiriu was

wholly engaged.in tho manufacture of cortain classes of footwear. He said that tho wages for male union workers over 21 in England was Is Id per hour, as against Is 9il. in New Zealand for all male workers* who had served their apprenticeship, and that of female workers B£d per hour for a 48-hour week, as against Is 2d for a 44-hour week in Now Zealand, .