CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 223, 21 August 1931, Page 8

CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS

DEMAND FOR PROTECTION. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, .Aug. 20. During a discussion by the Manufacturers’ Federation to-day of a proposal to amend the Customs Act, it was stated that 75 per cent, or the women’s garments which c “ me , ! nto I New Zealand were dumped, being bought at jobbing prices and sold at prices with which New Zealand manufacturers could not possibly compete. The debate arose on a V ellington remit: “That the Government be requested so to amend the Customs Act that it be obligatory on the part of every exporter of apparel to indicate in each invoice the ordinary or original selling price of the goods. Further, that the Government be requested that duty be levied on the purchase price, plus a dumping duty of twothirds of the difference between the price actually charged and the original price indicated.” Mr J. Lewis said, in regard to women’s garments, that 85 per cent, of the spending power was spent on dumped goods, and New Zealand manufacturers could not produce garments to compete with them. Retailers had been making 200 to 300 per cent, profit and even at the end of the season were able almost to give things away and still make a profit. Mr Lewis suggested that the price should he placed on each garment and then a duty ad valorem. In Australia that system had been very effective. New Zealand manufacturers went to the trouble of getting new models, new machinery and designers, but received very little encouragement. The only way was to put a duty on each garment. The clothing industry employed about 8000 people in the Dominion, but the total could be largely increased if action along the lines suggested were taken. It was decided to refer the remit back to Wellington for revision. STATEMENTS REBUTTED BY LOCAL ASSOCIATION. Referring to the above, the president of the Palmerston North drapers’ organisation says:— We have to thank the “Standard’ for the opportunity of contradicting the obviously absurd statement made by Mr J. Lewis, regarding the profits and purchases of imported frocks made by retailers. Anv firm attempting to make even half the profits mentioned would soon be out of business, because the buying public have a better appreciation of value. It must also be mentioned that fashion goods are sacrificed at the end of each season and it is even doubtful if showrooms have completed this year without serious loss.

It may be of interest to add the majority of New Zealand frock manufacturers have become so expert that the public are gladly purchasing their productions. Many retailers to-day are purchasing about half their requirements from New Zealand manufacturers and are likely to buy in increasing quantities in the future, owing partly to increases in tariffs. For these reasons we feel sur© that Mr Lewis cannot be speaking for the New Zealand frock manufacturers as a whole.

if the “Standard” desires to have these facts verified, the books of my organisation are available for the purpose.—H. B. Free, President, Palmerston North Drapers’ Association.