PARLIAMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 August 1934, Page 5

PARLIAMENT

TARIFF BILL DEBATE. [Pffiß PBEBB ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, August 28. In the House, this afternoon, Mr Jones asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the proposed increase in salary and wages of five per cent to the public servants, he would approve hospital boards increasing the salaries and wages of nurses and other hospital employees by a similar, amount. Mr Young replied that of the 45 hospital boards which had made salary reductions the same as the public service, four had restored the second cut in the present financial year. No objection would be taken to hospital boards who made the two reductions following the Government’s example. The debate on the second reading of the Customs Amendment Bill was resumed. Mr Sullivan said that the low tariff submitted to the House was

not in accordance with the spirit of the Ottawa Agrejement, but with the spirit of the Government itself, and it was anti-New Zealand industryspirit. New Zealand was giving Britain specially favourable treatment, apparently in the hope of receiving specially favourable treatment, but it had resulted in nothing. The New Zealand tariff was about a quarter that of Australia. If the Australian tariff gave reasonable opportunity to 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 British manufacturers reasonable opportunity for competition. Mr Healy said a tax on iron pipes i had placed the British and Australian manufacturers in a position of being unable to tender for big jobs, and left the New Zealand firm, the only one able to tender. He instanced an irregular scheme in Marlborough, and said the New Zealand company had increased the price by 6d a foot for large pipes, since the new tariff was introduced, and had put the scheme out of question. He criticised the removal of the duty on stock foods, as this would severely affect New Zealand barley growers. Barley imported from Australia as feed barley which came in free was the best malting barley, and was going into malt houses. In the evening Mr McDougall continued the debate. He said that if the same protection were given secondary industries as was given to wheat, New Zealand would be the happiest country in the world. He criticised the wheatgrower for the assistance he received, and said he did not blame the farmer who was only touting for Distributors Ltd., which was the nig- i ger in the woodpile. The people were ' paying far too much for bread, but the I Government did nothing. Mr Wright said the wheatgrowers J were not entitled to any more pro- , tection than other farmers in New 1 Zealand. ’

Mr Connolly said he thought the report of the Tariff Commission showed that one thing to be avoided was the setting up of a Tariff Board to deal with the question of tariffs. He defended the wheat duties, and said that some costs between the grower and consumer might be too great, but the grower was not responsible for that, so why attack him.

Mrs McCombs protested against the reduction in the excise duty on beer. Why was it made? The Tariff Commission did not recommend it, and 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. Brewers were not only not deserving of that gift, but did not require it. She ventured to say that not one member of the House would saj 7 the 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 working people. As it was, the reduction in 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 protested against the re-establishment of duty on electric ranges, and said it meant a great deal to power boards. Canadian ranges could be landed in New Zealand at £l6. The protection afforded New Zealand ranges was 86.8 per cent. The po rt wer boards desired that ranges should be available to consumers at the lowest possible price to increase

the use of power. Mr Jull, referring to the beer duty, said that before the war there was an excise of 3d a gallon. That was increased to 1/6 gallon. 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. The debate was adjourned. COAL AND OIL DUTIES MR. P. C. WEBB’S APPEAL [special to “stab.”] WELLINGTON, August 28. The protection of the New Zealand coal mining industry by means of a duty on coal and fuel oil imported from abroad, was advocated by Mr. P. C. Webb, when speaking during the second reading debate on the Customs Acts Amendment Bill, in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. Webb said that the importation of nearly 100,000 tons of coal a year, free of duty, was an insult to the mining industry ,and the fact that from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 gallons of fuel oil came in free every year was a further burden. As a result of the Government letting fuel oil in free, and not protecting local production of benzol, the mining industry had been seriously affected. He held that the Government was thus responsible for miners working only three days a fortnight. Every miner thrown out of work became a burden on the unemployment funds. Surely, the mining industry was deserving of greater consideration than that it had received from the Government. The Minister of Customs had given no reason why oilburning machinery should be allowed to come in free of duty. As the result of the Government policy of strangling the coal’ industry, they had at Millerton, a miner with a wife and ten children all dependent upon relief, and the maximum sum they could draw from the unemployment funds was £l/10/- a week. If it were right to put a tax on a. coal burning machine which burned a local product, surely it. was right that an oil burning machine which burned a foreign product should pay a substantial tax. If the policy he advocated were adopted,,

rr large number of men now unemployed would be engaged in regular work. Oil burning appliances for heating houses and for cooking were gradually replacing electricity and coal. He hoped the Government would see its way to impose a substantial tax on imported coal. The Prime Minister: How much duty would you suggest? Mr. Webb said that the Scientific Research Commission which recently investigated the matter recommended that 2jd per gallon should be placed on crude oil and that benzol produced from local coal in our gas works should not be taxed. In Christchurch about 80,000 gallons of benzol could be produced every year. All these valuable elements in our coal only, required scientific treatinent for their extraction and apart from extracting up to 95 per cent, of the real value of coal, we would be benefiting the country in other directions. His suggestion was that fuel oil imported should be taxed to the extent of 2Jd per gallon, and that benzol produced in New Zealand should not be subject to excise duty or surtax. Mr. Coates: That would be equal to

a subsidy of lOd per gallon. That is a very big subsidy. Mr. Webb: Only until such time as the industry got on its feet. That assistance would be more than offset by the increased freight returns on railways. At Christchurch Gas Works for instance there is consumed about 100,000 tons of coal per year. The freight on that quantity of coal would amount to at least £BO,OOO which would be a very serious item of revenue for the Railways Department. Mr. Forbes: Do you suggest that 100,000 tons of coal would produce 80,000 tons of benzol? Mr. Webb: No, but I say that the Christchurch Gas Works with very good increase in coal consumption, could produce a considerable quantity of benzol.