TARIFF CHANGES

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 49, 27 August 1934, Page 10

TARIFF CHANGES

BBITISH GOODS

ASSOCIATION'S CRITICISM

The -council of the United Kingdom Manufacturers' and New Zealand Representatives' Association (Inc.) at a meeting held on August 22, 1034, passed the following resolution:—

"This association expresses its strong regret and disapproval of the action of the Government in greatly reducing some of the worth-while concessions granted to the United Kingdom in tho original resolutions introduced, to Parliament on July 10, 1934, and it is tlio opinion of this association that a grave breach of the Ottawa Agreement has been committed in the fact that this action is directly contrary to the recommendations of the Tariff Commission." The following statement has been issued by the association in stipport of the resolution:— The recommendations of the- Tariff Commission were based on exhaustive investigations made and evidence received over a period from Juno 7, 1933, to March 1, 1934, and the Government has reversed its original decisions after consideration extending over a period of less than two months, i.e., from July 10 to August 22. It seems Incredible to think that such additional evidence furnished and investigations made in this period would justify its action, especially as all these items had been covered by the Commission. Some of the items where the Tariff Commission's recommendations and the original resolutions of the Government have been reversed are as under, and it must bo realised that these are some of the most important items in respect of which relief in the way of reduction of duties was sought by the United Kingdom.

In the statement, the United Kingdom duties are shown as follows:— (1) Eate recommended by Commission; (2) rate now proposed by Government; (3) rate beforo investigation by Commission, followed by the substance of the Commission's comments:—

Electric Cooking ' and Hejttiri" Appliances.— (1) Free, ■ (2) •20 per cent., (3) 20 per cent. Tho industry of manufacturing these goods is carried on to a certain extent in the Dominion, but after examining all the. evidence obtained we have come to the conclusion that it is not oue. to which,, under the Ottawa Agreement, protection .should bo afforded. . , '

AHiite Lead in Oil. —(1) Free, (2) £G per ton (for 2. years), (3) £(5 per ton. We are of opinion, that this industry is not suited to New Zealand conditions, and that the goods should bo admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff. •'..

Tinware. —(l) 15 per cent., (2) 20 per ccnt.,'.(3) .25 per cent.' After considering the evidence, we are of opinion that tho industry can function satisfactorily if the duty under the British preferential tariff is reduced to 15 per cent, ad val.

Confectionery.—(l) 20 per cent., (2) 25'per cent., (3)' 27-J per cent. This industry is carried on very efficiently in New Zealand. After considering the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the production costs in New Zealand and tho United Kingdom, we are of opinion that the rate of duty under tho British preferential tariff should be reduced to 20 per cent, ad val. -

Jams, Jellies, etc.—(l) Id per lb, (2) 2d per lb; (3) 2d per lb. After a consideration of the evidence, the Coinmission is of opinion that the rate of duty under the British preferential tariff should be reduced to Id per lb. This will conform with the terms of the Ottawa Agreement and should b*e satisfactory to both the New Zealand industry of manufacturing jams, etc., and tho dependent industry of fruit growing. It is considered that the duty on preserves under' the British preferential tariff should also be fixed at Id per 1!>.

Waterproof Clothing.—(l) 20 per cent., (2) 25 per cent., (3) 20 per cent. After reviewing the whole matter and considering all the factors involved we arc of opinion that tariff protection at 20 per cent, under tho British preferential tariff should bo accorded to piece-goods made wholly from wool and that in the meantime the duty on piecegoods not mado wholly or essentially from virgin wool should be fixed at tho same rate.

Cast and Wrought Iron Pipes,—(l) free, (2) 20 per cent, (3) 20 per cent. Various representations were made to the Commission with respect to the duty on iron and steel pipes. After a consideration of the evidence we arc of opinion that, under the conditions in which it is at present carried on, the industry of manufacturing these pipes in New Zealand is not one which is reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success. The making of steel pipes in Now Zealand is at present carried on chiefly by two manufacturers. We therefore recommend that the duty under the British preferential tariff should be abolished.

Dry Cells.—(l) Froo, (2) 15 per cent., (3) free. The Commission does not consider that the. goods in question are of sufficient importance to warrant protection.

The above indicate tho incomprehensible treatment accorded the United Kingdom, in every case the rato fixed by tho Government being higher than that recommended by its own Commission "to give the United Kingdom producer full opportunity of reasonable competition."

New Zealand'dealt tho United Kingdom a scver6 blow when the exchange was manipulated, and the latest move in upsetting most of tho original important tariff concessions will have a disastrous effect on New Zealand.

This association again emphasises, as it did before the Commission, that it has no desire to harm the secondary industries of New Zealand, but asks that the Ottawa Agreement be observed. Tho people of New Zealand must realise that the clause in the agreement allowing tho free entry of our produce to our best market, the United Kingdom, expires in 1935, and that unless the New Zealand Government is prepared to amend the new rates of duties a tariff or quota (or both) on our produce is inevitable, and for which New Zealand would at present havo no legitimate grounds for complaint. . The consequence of this will perhaps convince the people of Now Zealand that in the words of the National Union of Manufacturers of tho United Kingdom (in reference to the Ottawa Agreement) "a trade bargain between equals should not be so one-sided in its operation. There is no moral or economic reason why we should not do as the other parties to these agreements do and levy duties on oversea British produce and manufactures; the question is simply one of expediency and fairness."