TARIFF COMMISSION

Grey River Argus, 14 June 1933, Page 5

TARIFF COMMISSION

Trials of Boot Industry (P‘r Press Association). WELLINGTON. June 13. Mr Leonard Harcourt Labone, representing the Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd (ammunition section), asked fur a reduction in the- duties on «ait ridges, percussion caps, powder (sporting) and zipp fasteners. In the casi, of the latter article, he asked that a duty of fifty per cent. be imposon the foreign fastener. Air Labone said that he sought protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Kingdom. Mr A. Mitchell, managing director oi A. Mitchell and Co., Ltd., contended that the New Zealand boot and shoe industry could never become economical. This he said was proved by the fact, that despite bolstering up over a long period of years, the number of factories was steadily decreasing. Few if any, were working on profitable lines, because o f the ruthless price cutting going on among themselves. Fully fifty per cent, of the materials used in the New Zealand made* shoe came from Great Britain and therefore it was more economical to import the finished article. Witness maintained that the New Zealand industry was being protected ar too great a cost to the general public, who should be given the opportunity to buy footwear from England, where it was capable* of being produc ed more cheaply Mr Mander: You believe that if a Now Zealand factory is not capable of producing at a price competitive widi I that of the British factory, the New Zealand factory should go out of busiWitness: Yes. in fairness to the pubDr. Craig: If New Zealand were cut out. would you get any foreign competition? Witness: Not/to any great extent. Professor Murphy: Do you suggest the the aggregate landing charges should be 30 per cent? Witness: Yes. , Do you think it is a good policy to have a moveable tariff: to combat currency fluctuations Professor Murphy: I do. Witness: You really mean that an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 per cent, is a fair thing? Professor Murphy: Yes. Evidence in rebuttal was given by Air IT. B. Duckworth, managing director of Duckworth, Turner and Co., Ltd., who said that in the United Kingdom the minimum wage for workers over twenty-one* years of age was 13 |d an hour; in Now Zealand the minimum rate for men who had served five years in the trade, or -who were* over twenty-one yoar s of age, whether they had served their apprenticeship or not was Is an hour, a difference of about 60 per cent. In the union boot shops in Great Britain, female workers were* paid B|d an hour, for a 48-hour week, and in New Zealand they were paid Is 2d an hour for a 44-hour week, a difference of 75 per cent. DUTY ON WATERPROOFS. WELLINGTON, June 13. The tariff Commission hoard further evidence to’day. Alien Seaton Winton, managing director, Roneo Office Equipment, asked for a further reduction in duties on steel furniture, and certain office machines. He said that local firms manufacturing steel office furniture marketed comparatively few lines. The Secretary of the Manufacturing Association said he would call evidence to show that two New’ Zealand companies were making steel office equipment as their main lines, and representations would be made on their behalf. John James, managing director of

G. Bromall and Co., sought a contin nance of the present tariff of 27j per cent, on waterproof clothing. He said that if duty continued, the com* pany could increase the output, and very likely reduce prices. One othe difficulties confronting the com {•any was dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market, at the end of the English season.