CUSTOMS TARIFF

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 51, 29 August 1934, Page 13

CUSTOMS TARIFF

THE AMENDING BILL

DEBATE CONTINUED

VARIETY OF OPINIONS

Further arguments for and against the tariff proposals of the Government, were heard in the House ol Representatives last evening, when (he second reading debate on the Customs Amendment Bill, which gives statutory effect to the alterations, was continued. Members still showed a keen desire to talk, although the second reading debate had already been proceeding for two whole days, and when the House adjourned just before midnight the debate had not concluded. v Mr. P. C. Webb (Labour, Bullcr) said that because of tho policy of the Government in allowing fuel-oil to enter the Dominion duty free, the coalmines were working part time and the miners and their families were living in poverty. Surely the mining industry was deserving of as much consideration as any other industry. "Why should not oil pay its fair share? Many of the miners were receiving less than £1 per week with which to. keep their wives and families. Not only was crude oil admitted duty free, but oil-burning machines were admitted free also, whereas machines burning coal or other fuel wore subject to a tariff. Surely, the coal industry was deserving of protection in tho same way as the wheat industry was. While there was an abundance oi; wheat people should not, have to go without bread. While there was a superabundance of butter, there should not bo people in want of this commodity. While miners were eager to go down into tho mines, tho people of the- towns should not go cold. There was something radically wrong with tho present economic system. It had beon suggested that oil used for the bunkering of ships should bo admitted free, but that the crude oil used for other purposes should be taxed. The Prime Minister (the Kt. Hon. G. W. Forbes): That would not bo a great amount. Mr. Webb: Yes, it would be about 1-1,000,000 gallons, Mr. Webb said that the miners had never endeavoured to'cripple'any other industry, and it was up to other industries to ask for a fair deal for coalmining. The miners were not asking for anything more than was being given to Other industries. Unless something was done for the mining industry, more miners would bo forced on, to relief works. Mr. Forbes: How much would you put on to crudo,oil? Mr Webb said that it, had been subgested that a duty of 2Jd a gallon should bo placed on crudo oil and that benzol produced from coal in New Zealand should not bo taxod. Mr. Forbes: That would be a subsidy of lOd per gallon. Mr. Webb said that the proposal was that no tax should be imposed on bonzol until the industry was on its feet. IRON PIPES. Mr. E. F. Healy (Government, Wairau) said that the tax on iron pipes had placed British- and Australian manufacturers in tho position of being unable to tender for big jobs. It was now left to a New Zealand firm to tender alone, and this company had increased the price sixpence per foot m connection with the Marlborough irrigation scheme which was providing for the unemployed. He criticised the action of tho Government in allowing Australian feed barley to como in free of duty. This barley was coming in as feod barley, but a great deal of it was going into malthouses. Mr. H. Holland (Government, Christchurch North) said that the new tariff was a fair and equitable ■ adjustment. He hoped that the- Government would continue to foster the New Zealand manufacturers of electric stoves. This industry was catering for the needs of the people and was deserving of encouragement. Mr. W. H. Meld (Government, Otaki) said that in the- pipe industry there was a combination between the interested parties which had the effect of maintaining high prices. Those secondary industries which had a chance of success had to be nurtured. He was not entirely satisfied with' Mie sliding scale of wheat duties, and trusted that a better way would be found to tacklo tho problem. He complained about tho importation of Japanese and other foreign goods, and said that there shouiit uo inquiry to see that the price paid by the public was not abnormally high. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said that thero was no plan in tho tariff. ' Was Parliament watching New Zealand or was it watching a land 13,000 miles away? 'The tariff was developed along the lines, not of helping New Zealand, but of helping others in the Old Country. Mr. D. MeDougall (Independent, Mataura) said that New Zealand-made wearing apparel was superior to the imported articles. AN EXCHANGE OF GOODS. Mr. E. Semple (Labour, Wellington East) said that the tinkering w.th. tariffs was one of the main causes of conflict between nations. The ~ continual changing of tariffs might result in a conflict which would bring widespread devastation and distress. Surely it was rational that tho nations, which were producing moro goods than ever before, should como to trade agreements. New Zealand should first estimate what she could produce and then endeavour to exchange her surplus for goods which, she could not produco, but which she desired. ' New ideas were needed to meet changed conditions. If they continued to play with the wornout methods of Free Trade and Protection, they would continue to drift perilously. Today the world was filled with many sellers and few buyers,_ and as a result there was an international glut which brought in its train all kinds of trade barriers. Those who considered that the markets of the. United Kingdom would continue to be open to the Dominions were living in a fool's paradise, because Britain was meeting increased competition: from other industrial nations, and she was no longer the workshop of the world. She was losing trade to countries which were developing their own industries. Tho policy laid down at the Ottawa Conference bad been wrong and was jeopardising the existence of New Zealand's industries at the very time when the Dominion's industries should be developed. There had been a large number of protests from different industries, and it was apparent that the new tariff was far from satisfactory. The new duty on foreign lubricating oil would mean a tax of £1000 per annum on tho new flax textile industry which was.worthy of every possiblo support. ROOM FOR EXPANSION. Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs)' said that if, as had beon staled,, tbrre wns :in nbvindance of wheat in the world, then Hit: when I. industry should not. be pro-

toeleil. The land at present growing wheat in New Zealand could'produce what other fanning lands produced. It was extraordinary "that four of the ilourmillers -.'should be .on "the Wheat I Board. Further, sonic of the flourmilling plant was out of date. The Bill opened up tho question of Free Trado and Protection. New Zealand had in the past followed out the policy that goods that could not.be produced in New Zealand economically should bo ■ purchased from abroad, and that they ; should be bought in Great.Britain. Tho ' Old Country had found out that she ' could not -have' Free Trade, while the ; other nations were heavily protected. ' Today 383,000 persons wore dependent on manufacturing industries in New ' Zealand; that was about. one-quarter of the population. Both the manufacturing and primary industries musUbo ■ allowed to expand. If there was to be a halt in the expansion of tho primary industry owing to lack of markets, then tho only room for expansion was in the secondary industries. It was estimated that if 'tho opening was there 30,000 : more workers could be employed, and : there would bo an additional 00,000 ' persons employed directly or indirectly. ■ Tho numbers so- employed would help ; to solve the unemployment- problem. Dealing with the effect of foreign.competition on British pottery, he said ; that the Japanese competition had increased considerably. He contended that the Government should insist that ' foreign makers should brand their articles with the name of the country of origin. Mr. J. Connolly (Government, MidCanterbury) said that while practically every country in tho world had a protective tariff on wheat, yet the wheat growers in New Zealand were asked to remove the protection. Today, the New Zealand wheat grower was getting no more protection than was the mannfacturcv of boots or electric ranges. If there was any fault with the price of •bread, it was not the fault of the wheat grower, so why should he be attacked.' i REDUCTION OF BEER DUTY. j Mrs. E. E. 'McCombs (Labour, Lyt- , telton) protested against the reduction of the duty on boor. Mr. Coates: On what,' Mrs. McCombs: On something the right honourable gentleman knows nothing about, but if he listens to me ho will know something about it when I have finished. Mrs. McCombs alleged that the case for the brewers had been made secretly. Mr. Coates: The brewers never made any representations at all. Mrs. McCombs: Then all I want to say Mr. Coates: Be careful what you do say. ~ Mrs. McCombs: I will be very careful what I do say, because nothing that I could say would be too strong to condemn tho proposal. Tho> whole thing has been- done secretly without any adequate reason. Tho proposals, continued Mrs. McCombs, meant a straight-out gift ot £112,000 to the brewing industry. -No. suggestion was made by the Tariff Commission that any such reduction should be made. Mr. J. A. Nash (Government, Palmerston) stated that it appeared that manufacturers were generally satisfied with tho tariff as amended. He believed tho wheat duties wore justified because it would not be desirable to depend on the fluctuating crops of Australia. The Dominion was only doing what England was trying to do in tho way of making itself more self-sup-porting, and as a matter of fact it would cost moro than tho present guaranteed prico to land wheat from Australia. Without doubt tho time wouldcome when exchange would como down and mcanwhilo our. secondary industries were well protected. Ho was not satisfied with all tho recent adjustments. It was at first proposed to romovo tho 20 per cent. duty, on electric cooking appliances, but this had been reinstated, much to the surprise of tho power boards. It was argued that they-. did uot pay income tax, but they were obliged to provide heavily, for depreciation. A well-known imported range cost £819s 2d, but with exchange, sales tax, and other, charges the cost was £16 4s 9d, which meant, a protection to local makers of 86.S per cent, without including any duty. He believed that the troirblo had come through tho opposition of the gas companies.. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) said that an attempt was being made by juggling with the tariff to compel people to smoke cigarettes instead of pipe .tobacco. The sweeping changes in the tobacco industry would probably mean that the revenue would fall. Tobacco containing a large proportion of New Zealand-grown leaf had become popular, and the industry was, one which should bo encouraged. Dealing with the proposed control of the industry, he said he would urge on the Minister tho necessity of hastening slowly. It would bo in the best interests of all concerned if a voluntary board of control were set up first. Probably there should bo some restriction on tobacco growing, but it would not be good for tho Government to bring down legislation without, lull knowledge. THE PRICE OF BEER. Mr. A. E. Jull (Government, Waipawa) said that the tobacco growers wero'largely in the hands of the manufacturing interests, and tho goal the orowers should aim at was co-opera-tion, thus becoming their own manufacturers. Dealing with the boor duty, ho said that as far as he was concerned he had no interest in _ a brewery, and he had not had an interest for the last fifteen years. Before the war the excise duty was od a gallon. Then it was six times that amount—ls 6d—and now with the reduction it would be five times the prewar duty. It was absurd to say that the £112,000 would be retained by the rMr. Barnard: Who will-get the beneMr. Jull: The benefit will accrue to the public. ' Mr. Barnard: Nonsense. What, on a P1 Mr Jull: Very few pints are sold nowadays; the pints were removed to the cellar long ago. Mr. Jull said that tho Trade had suffered very severely in tho last three \or four years. The debate was adjourned.