CUSTOMS DEBATE

Evening Star, Issue 21811, 29 August 1934, Page 3

CUSTOMS DEBATE

STILL UNCOMPLETED [Pek United Pkess Association,] WELLINGTON, August 28. Tho debate on the- second reading of tho Customs Act Amendment Bill was resumed in the House of llepresontatives. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that the low tariff submitted to the House was not in accordance with the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement, but with the spirit of tho Government itself, and it was an anti-New Zealand industry spirit. New Zealand was giving Britain specially favoured treatment apparently in the hope of receiving specially favoured treatment, but it had resulted in nothing. He said the New Zealand tariff was about a quarter of that cf Australia. If the Australian tariff gave a reasonable opportunity to the British competitor and the British Government had accepted it, why was it necessary for the New Zealand Government to lower its tariff still further in order to give the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity for competition ? Mr I). S. Reid (Raglan) urged a reduction of duty on electric and gas stoves by 10 per cent. Mr P. C. Webb (Buffer) criticised tho Government for not putting a duty on crude oil and oil-burning machinery to assist the coal industry. Pie also supported a tax being put on Australian coal. The Bill was not only not doing anything to help the coal industry, but was doing much to injure it. A commission composed of experts had recommended that a tax of 2Jd per gallon should be placed on crude oil, and that the tax on benzol, which was manufactured in the dominion gas works, should be removed. Mr E. F. Healey (Wairau) said that the tax on iron pipes had placed the British and Australian manufacturers in the position of being unable to tender for the big jobs and left the New Zealand firm the only one that was able to tender. He instanced the irrigation scheme in Marlborough, and said that the New Zealand company had' increased the price 6d a foot for large pipes since the .new tariff had been introduced, and had put the scheme out of the question. He criticised the removal of the duty on stock foods, as it would severely' affect New Zealand barley-arowers.

Mr H. Holland (Christchurch North) congratulated the Government on its compromise in tho tariff regarding electric stoves. He said the new tariff was a reasonable one, and the industry gave employment to a large number of men in Christchurch and Dunedin.

Mr W. _H. Field (Ot.aki) said the tariff carried out the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement and took cognisance of, the position of local industries. He was not altogether satisfied with the sliding scale of wheat and flour duties. Some importers were making large profits from the sale of cheap Japanese goods. Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said the tariff should be shaped to suit New Zealanders, but actually it was shaped to suit persons in England. New Zealand had always given Britain special treatment, and it was time New Zealand began to consider herself. England was looking after herself first, and it was time New Zealand did the same. The Government bad always looked at New Zealand,from tho farmers’ point of view. The present tariff looked at New Zealand from the farmers’ point of view.

Mr D. M'Dougall (Mataura) said it was impossible to bring in a tariff that would suit everybody. Goods made in New Zealand hoot factories and woollen mills were much better than the imported articles. If tho same protection were given secondary industries as was given to wheat, New Zealand would be tho happiest country in the world. He criticised the wheat-grower for the assistance he received. He said he did not blame the farmer, who was only touting for Distributors Limited, which was the “ nigger in the woodpile.” The people were paying tar too much for ureud, but the Uovernmenc did uothipg. Air 11. Semple (Wellington East) said he was satisfied that juggling or tinkering with tariffs was no solution of the problems facing the world to-day. The tariff was one of the mam things that led to conflict among nations. Representatives of the nations should meet and arrange trade agreements instead of building lip tariffs. Air R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said the wiieatgrowers were not entitled to any more protection than other farmers in New Zealand. He agreed that primary and secondary industries must be developed together, lio spoke of Japanese competition, and referred specially to pottery, stating that all goods should be marked witli the country of origin. Air J. Connolly (Mid-Canterbury) said lie had always believed that primary industries could not be carried on unless the development of secondary industries went hand in hand. He thought the report of the Tariff Commission showed that one thing to be avoided was tho setting up of a tariff board to deal with the question of tariffs. He defended the wheat duties, and said that some of the costs between the grower and the consumer might be too great, but the grower was not responsible for that, so why attack him?

Mrs M'Combs (Lyttelton) protested against the reduction in the excise duty on beer, and asked why it was made. The Tariff Commission did not recommend it. No mention was made of it when the resolutions were first introduced. The whole thing had been done secretly without any adequate reason being given. The proposals meant a straight-out gift of £112,000 to the brewing industry. The brewers were not only not deserving of that gift, but did not require it. Mrs M ‘Combs said she ventured to say that not one member of the House would say an increased consumption of drink would be to the benefit of the country. Had the duty been taken off tea it would have meant some difference to the budgets of the working people. As it was the reduefion of the beer duty would not be passed on to the public. She doubted if it would even be passed on to the hotels.

Mr J. Nash (Palmerston) said lie thought that manufacturers were now generally satisfied with the duties before the House. He supported the wheat duties, and said New Zealand should grow its own supplies and be independent of other countries. He protested against the re-establisbment of the duty on electric ranges. It meant a great deal to power boards. Canadian ranges could be landed in New Zeainnd at £l6. The protection afforded New Zealand ranges was 86.8 per cent. Power boards desired that ranges should be available to consumers at tlio lowest possible price in order to increase the use of power. Mr \V. E. Barnard (Napier) sought further concessions for the tobacco industry, and supported Mrs M'Combs’s

protest against the reduction of the beer duty. Mr A. K. Jull (Waipawa), referring to the beer duty, said that before the war there was an excise of 3d a gallon. That was increased to Is 6d a gallon, and now it was reduced by 3d. The suggestion that the brewers would be allowed to retain that was absurd. The benefit would go to the consumer in the amount of _ liquor provided. In Britain the excise last year was reduced by Bd. While many people hold the same views as Mrs M‘Combs a great number held a different view, and those engaged in the trade during the last two or three years had suffered severely. Mr I). W. Coleman (Gisborne) said the Government seemed more concerned about finding employment for British workmen in Britain Jhan for finding work for New Zealand workmen in New Zealand. The debate was adjourned when the House rose at 11.50 p.m.