TARIFF COMMISSION

Grey River Argus, 15 June 1933, Page 5

TARIFF COMMISSION

FARMERS' UNION POLICY. OPPOSED TO PROTECTION. (per Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 14. The Tariff Commission to-day, heard the evidence submitted by the New Zealand Farmers’ Union. This takes the form of a substantial document, which traverses the whole ground of fiscal policies in general, and says: — The policy of the Farmers’ Union was learly laid down at the first Doninion Conference of the Union in 902, in the following terms: That taxation through Customs should, be for the purpose of raising revenue and t not for protective purposes. From f that day to this, the Union unswerv- , ingly adhered to this policy which ad- ? vocatPs the abolition of all tariff dut- < ies except those for raising revenue. ] The statement says; A tariff policy to be valid and permanent must be . built up on principles, or, at all events, , must be underlain by some broad principles of policy. Otherwise, it cannot be permanent and is a. source of danger and uncertainty to the community. The burden of protection falls on the nan-protected interests of the country, viz., the farming community. professional classes and those employers and workers who are not employed in protected industries. In New Zealand, farmers have to take world parity prices for goods. A tariff can be of little advantage to them, for their prices are fixed abroad. They are not affected by what happens here as regards price, but their costs of production are materially increased by artificial loading of protective duties, but we do not advocate that the existing protective tariffs should be removed in toto immediately, as such would result in internal trade cha.os. The removal should be gradual, with a definite objective in view of having them materially reduced before the terms of Ottawa Agreement are next considered. The statement goes on to deal with details of trade, and says, inter alia: Our secondary industries have not shown the initiative our farmers have done. Our manufacturers have kept their eyes fastened on small local markets only. To assist them in catering for these they have cried out for, and have obtained, more and more protection, with the result that their industries have grown up as hot house plants. Our manufacturers have failed to put. a single line on an export basis. After dealing with the manufacturing statistics for 1927, which is taken as the last normal year, the statement says: We are firmly convinced that less protection will ultimately prove beneficial to our manufacturers, as such will compel them to seek out and concentrate their energies mainly on production of those lines of goods most suitable to New Zealand conditions and which through the increased efficiency of manufacture, may be put on an export basis again. The statement says: ‘‘Tariff will not create new industries. Industries can be created only by labour and capital, and tariff can divert these from one channel to another, but cannot call them into being. Further, it is said, we strongly assert that the existing fiscal policy imposes upon the consuming public a burden far in excess of what it should have to bear. We maintain that millions are spent needlessly every year, owing to this pernicious policy. The union has no objection, it states to a true revenue , tariff of moderate dimensions, balanced where appropriate by counter-vail-ing excise duties. If this policy were carried out, the union would be prepared to sacrifice any subsidies and protection it at present enjoys, which are purely defensive reaction to the misconceived tariff policy. Upon conclusion of the case of the Farmers’ Union, the Tariff Commission heard representations on behalf of the New Zealand Canister Co. Representatives of the firm asked that there be no alteration in the general tariff affecting their trade, but that a heavier duty bo imposed on goods imported in small tins. It was contended that this was necessary to develop the tin making industry of New Zealand. The conference adjourned until tomorrow.