MAKING GLASSWARE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21578, 24 August 1933, Page 11

MAKING GLASSWARE

COMPETITION IN BOTTLES DUTY-FREE IMPORTS URGED REPLY BY LOCAL FACTORY Opposing forces were ranged against each other before the Tariff Commission yesterday, when glass bottles were tho principal subject under discussion. Iho representatives of British manufacturers sought the abolition of tho duty of 25 per cent, while a local manufacturing firm asked for increased protection. In a general statement on behalf of tho United Glass Bottle Manufacturers, Limited, of London, Mr. P. H. Hughes asked that British bottles should enter New Zealand duty-free, with an Australian rate of 20 per cent and a general rate of 35 per cent. "At one time New Zealand was a good market for United Kingdom glassware," said tho statement, "but since the Penrose factory started uiujor the auspices of the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company, Limited, tariffs have been imposed and increased, and now amount to 25 per cent. Wo understand that in a recent period of 12 months tho Penrose factory was not in operation for more than four months. Glass from Australia "Ia addition, a considerable portion of tho glassware used in New Zealand is not manufactured at Penrose, but is shipped from Australia by tho owners of tho works. Under such circumstances it does not appear that the works will increase in sizo,or efficiency. Freight alone should bo adequate protection for the efficient manufacture of glassware in New Zealand and, accordingly, under clauses seven and eight of the Ottawa agreement, it is asked that the item bo placed on the free list." . In examining the witness, Mr. A. E. Mander, secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, referred to tho "enormous dividends" of the concern represented by Mr. Hughes. "I suggest that the United Bottle Manufacturers have virtual price control in Britain," he said. "No," replied Mr. Hughes. "We have to meet very keen competition from quite a number of others." When Mr. Mander asked for substantiation of the charge that the Penrose works operated only four months in a recent year, Mr. E. G. Lane, managing director of the Lane Medicine Company, Oamaru, replied that the works had been open only during the following periods:—May, 1930, to February, 1931; August, 1931, to December, 1931; July, 1932, to December, 1932; and from July, 1933, to date. Protection by Freight Giving evidence later, Mr. Lane asked for the abolition of the duty on all British bottles. He said that' the freight and insurance alone on a shipment valued at £2252 amounted to £847, or 31.2 per cent, which he considered to be sufficient protection. He also alleged that the local bottles were inferior in durability and finish, and that, owing to ,the closing of the local works, bottles had to be ordered within a period to suit the manufacturer and not the user. The case for the Australian Glass Manufacturers' Company, Limited, was stated by Mr. W. L. Elliott, secretary, who said the Penrose works were started in October, 1922. He desired the British duty raised from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, and the genera! duty from 50 per cent to 60 per cent. "The present tariff is not sufficient to compensate for the greater cost of manufacture in New Zealand as against the cost of manufacture in England," he said. "There is also a possibility of freight reductions being made from overseas, and we can see no possibility of obtaining reductions in our internal transport costs. All our goods sold to North Island towns, wherever possible, are railed, and approximately 50 per cent of our freight account is paid to the Kail ways Department." -

Mr. Elliott said it was impossible for his company to obtain the major portion of the smaller bottle business owing to severe Japanese competition. The tariff applied for would enable the local company to obtain that trade, which would mean additional work for the- box and crate manufacturers.

The Employment Factor Examining Mr. Elliott, Mr. Hughes said the local company, when it sought protection, had stated it would increase the number of employees from 70 to 200 in two years, but the present staff was only 85. "We naturally assumed that trade conditions would improve," replied Mr. Elliott. "Again, the glass industry has been almost revolutionised by automatic machinery since then. We have had up to 130 hands a week, and wo work three shifts." Mr. J. Purtell, secretary of the Glassworkers' Union, gave general support to Mr. Elliott's case, on the grounds that workers in industry should have tariff protection, according to circumstances. The members of the commission visited the Penrose works last evening.

SUPPLEMENTARY DUTIES PRIMAGE AND SURTAX EMPIRE CONGRESS PROTEST In giving evidence before the Tariff Commission earlier in the month, the representatives of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce urged complete aboli-i-J 8 ?- U^ y BUrtax on tho grounds that differential rates of duty chargeable on goods from various countries exporting to New Zealand should be expressed in the tariff rates, and not depend on any system of penalising surtaxes. The Auckland chamber has received advice from Mr. F. N. Ambler, one of its representatives, that a resolution was passed at the Congress of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, held in London last month, covering the exact point. The text of tho resolution -is as follows: "Tho congress regrets the continuance of the practice in various Dominions and colonies of levying supplementary duties such as primage duty, surtax and package tax, and urges the early abolition, of these additional imposts, not only on account of the serious inconvenienco and complications unnecessarily caused by these various types of surcharges, but because of their effect in reducing preference. This procedure was proposed at Ottawa." A .further resolution was passed qualifying this expression of opinion in respect of goods imported from countries under artificial circumstances, tho qualifying resolution reading as follows: —"This federation is of opinion that tho Governments of tho various parts of the Empire should take power, where this does not already exist, to protect national industries against imports of goods or services from other countries which by reason of depreciated exchanges, bounties, subsidies, or other artificial circumstances, may be sold at prices which will be detrimental to the industries of the country and other parts of the Empire."