TARIFF COMMISSION

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 July 1933, Page 2

TARIFF COMMISSION

THE CASE FOR BRITAIN. [FEB PBESB ASSOCIATION,] s WELLINGTON, July 3. The necessity for increasing New Zealand purchases from the United Kingdom, on which the Dominion is so dependent for the sale of primary products was the keynote of the general case presented to the tariff Commission, on behalf of the Untied Kingdom manufacturers, and the New Zealand Representatives’ Association Inc., by G. 0. Sutton and N. H. Russell. It was contended that to attain this, certain reductions of the existing duties were of paramount importance. In order to reduce the present excessively high landed costs, said Mr Sutton* they particularly requested a reduction in those duties protecting non-economic secondary industries. Broadly speaking, the Association was of the opinion that any industry, which except perhaps in the early stages, could not exist with natural protection of freights and allied charges was economically unsound, and if excessively protected, it was at the expense of the community generally. At the same time, it was admitted there were industries which, if the above was correct, were economically unsound, but which were entitled to some protection by way of duties,, and the Association did not object to this, always provided such extra protection was not so excessive as to preclude importations, of similar lines manufactured elsewhere. They wished to emphasise, and provide proof, that generally speaking, they were not asking for duties to be abolished, but reduced. Also it was submitted that protection was justified in certain cases of unfair competition against countries with a lower standard of living. They desired to emphasise that while New Zealand relied upon the United Kingdom market for nearly 90 per cent, of exports, and the failure of that market would bring certain disaster to us, how little the failure of New Zealand would affect the United Kingdom, might be gleamed from the fact that of the total of United Kingdom imports, New Zealand supplied only 3.66, while of the United Kingdom total exports, New Zealand took only 2.93 per cent. In view of the above, it was felt there was no necessity to stress the absolute importance of strengthening the New Zealand market, by. helping every possible way those United Kingdom manufacturers who desired to export to New Zealand, and it was also desired to mention the question of one way freights and stress the point that if ships come out in ballast, then the exports must- necessarily to some ex-‘ tent pay freights both ways. They contended that the lowering of duties. would not necessarily mean reduction of revenue or increase unemployment, because firstly they were of opinion that the increased imports would result, in most cases, in as much, if nor more, revenue being collected, and secondly, that the cheapening of goods to the consumer would stimulate employment in other avenues of industry. They were definitely favourable to reasonable tariffs, but did ask that. United Kingdom manufacturers be enabled to compete tanIv in this market in the spirit of the ■Ottawa Agreement. The possibilities which might follow' if this agreement •was not carried out could quite conceivably mean disaster to New Zealand. . , An emphatic denial that sweated labour was being used in the United Kingdom was made, in support of which a letter from Trade Commissioner Palish was quoted, and the menace of the Japanese competition was referred to. It was contended that ad valorem duties were useless in preventing increasing importations from Japan, and it was hoped that the Commission would give particular attention to the suggestion that duties be levied on the specific basis of so much on an article, or so much a yard, etc.