MR. POLSON & CORRUGATED IRON

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 8

MR. POLSON & CORRUGATED IRON

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln my last letter I quoted the "British "Ironmonger" -of April 22, 1933. Unfortunately a typing error gave the year as 1934. The date, however, was absolutely immaterial to the argument. : Yet Mr.; Poison pounces upon • this trifling clerical error as tfiough it disposed of the whole mat-j ter.'- Surely this is not the way to1 conduct a serious public discussion. The quotation referring to corrugated iron read as? follows: "British manufacturers continue to quote !f.o.b. £10 10s for other mnrkets, and' £11 for New Zealand." What does this mean? It means that British manufacturers were charging New Zealand 10s a ton more than any other country in the world. Since that date the actual prices have been altered from time to time; but the extra 10s a ton has always been maintained on British exports to -New Zealand. ■ . I In the last year for ■which I have tlio figures before-me, Britain exported 12,577 tons of galvanised iron to New Zealand; 38,389 to South Africa; 20,489 to ;Denmark; 10,368 to Norway; 16,520 to Irish ]<\ree\ State. All these countries we're (and- are) able to buy it at 10s a ton less than ivo in Ifew Zealand are forcod to pay. The Scandinavian countries buy it more cheaply still. ~..'

The fact is that the export price of corrugated iron is fixed monthly by *i "ring" of the British- manufacturers. The report already quoted continues:— "At .the monthly meeting held this week it was decided to free the Scandinavian market from price control, but otherwise to make iio change in conditions or prices.""

Now, there was formerly a New Zealand industry producing corrugated iron, and it was protected by a small duty on imports. In , 1928 that duty was abolished, and the New Zealand industry wiped out. Presumably, the object was,to allow the public to purchase cheaper imported iron. A duty of 20 per cent, was left on foreign corrugated iron, but imports from Britain became duty free. The -British manufacturers were thus freed from the competition of a domestic industry- in this market, while their preference of 20 per cent, over foreign competitors gave them a virtual monopoly. And the result? The result is that the British manufacturers are able to charge us 10s a ton more than they charge to any other country in the world.

One would imagino that Mr. Poison, as spokesman of the free traders, would bo seriously perturbed by this revelation of the way in which tho public (including the farmers) are being exploited through the destruction of a domestic industry and the adoption of free trade. Instead, he merely pounces on a trifling clerical error which has no bearing whatever on the facts. This is the more surprising when it-is mentioned that Mr. Poison was fully awaro at the time that it i vas merely a clerical error; ho had previously been furnished by me with a copy of the statement in which the date was correctly given. It is indeed a surprising display for one occupying Mr. Poison's position.—l am, etc.,

A. E. MANDER,

New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation.