The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUDY 21, 1923. AN OBJECTIONABLE DUTY.

Evening Star, Issue 18333, 21 July 1923, Page 4

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JUDY 21, 1923. AN OBJECTIONABLE DUTY.

It is sincerely to be hoped that the representations being made to the Government will not merely lead to a postponement of the Customs duty on glass bottles and jars till the end of the year, but to its abolition altogether. The tariff of 1921 left these articles on tho free list so long as their country of origin was British; but, if of foreign make, there was a 10 per cent, preferential duty. There was then no glass bottle or jar industry in Nov/ Zealand. Now one is being started at Auckland under Australian auspices. As a matter of course the promoters asked the New Zealand Government for a protective duty to encourage local manufacture. With some precipitancy the Government agreed to impose a 20 per cent, duty on tho imported article, to take effect from September. It now appears as if Parliament will have tho opportunity to review the Government’s action. If Parliament does not upset it altogether, thus preventing the perpetration of an economic blunder and at tho same time giving the Government a smart rap over the knuckles for unconstitutional procedure in its assumption of powers that ought not to belong to it, we shall be disappointed. The encouragement of now local industries is an excellent thing, but there is reason in all things. We have ourselves advocated moderate duties to help local war-born industries to continue when they were threatened with tho dumping that characterised the sudden outpouring of the products of previously pent-up manufacture abroad. Those duties appeared necessary. But a duty on glass containers appears not only totally unnecessary, but positively injurious. The establishment of the glass industry in New Zealand is desirable, but not on the terms proposed. If it cannot bo established without fiscal protection it is not worth establishing. At present tho firms using glass containers for their products import them, mostly from England. Tho shipments have to be carefully packed and handled, and it is not surprising to learn that their landed cost hero ranges from 50 to 80, even 100, per cent, more than the price in the country of origin because of freight, insurance, and cartage. If that in itself does not constitute sufficient protection to the local manufacture of .glassware, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that such manufacture here is not an economically sound proposition and had better be left alone.

Presuming the 20 per cent. Customs duty to be imposed on the imported article, it would not stop importations. The main, if not tho solo, line of manufacture with which the Auckland industry starts is beer bottles. It is hoped, with the help of Customs protection, to keep 200 employees going. Brewers ridicule the idea of works of that limited size being able to meet New Zealand requirements in that lino alone. Bottlers would still have to import, even at the higher price. For the local article, judging by tho product of the parent company in Australia, is decidedly inferior to tho English, and would bo only a little cheaper. Thus, even if the local output were large enough for

New Zealand’s needs, it appears doubtful whether there would bo a demand for it. If the industry requires a 20 per cent. “ boost ” through the Customs to start it, it seems not improbable that it will before long bo calling for a far higher duty—a prohibitive one. The Government would then be awkwardly confronted with conniving at the creation of a monopoly. But there are other industries than browing to consider. Thera are cordial manufacturers, chemists, jam manufacturers, and makers of other preserves using glass containers. Their requirements would become dearer without local glass manufacture bong benefited, since such containers would not be made here. If they wore made here, it is feared the quality would not bo equal to that of the imported container, and it is remarkable what a factor the attractiveness of the container is in the saleability of articles of food and drink. If the prices of containers are forced up, the price of the article will have to go up also. This would help to put up the cost of living in Now Zealand, and w'ould handicap our manufacturers in competition abroad. Australia competes with New Zealand in these lines, and that has to bo remembered in conjunction with this latest venture of Australian capital in New Zealand. It appears that, to give some 200 men employment in Auckland, it will bet necessary to handicap other industries employing many scores of times that number, and compel the public to pay higher prices for a number of products, mostly necessaries of life or coming very nearly under that category.