BOOTS AND SHOES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21911, 21 September 1934, Page 13

BOOTS AND SHOES

REDUCTION IN DUTY

LABOUR PROTESTS RAISED STATE OF LOCAL INDUSTRY ADEQUATE PROTECTION URGED [BY TKLF.GRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION*] WELLINGTON, Thursday The position of the boot industry in New Zealand was discussed in the House of Representatives to-night when the item in the schedules of the Customs Bill, reducing the duty on imported British footwear from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, was reached. Mr. F. Jones (Labour —Dunedin South') moved to retain the duty of 25 per cent. He said the footwear industry had been hard hit. Many employees were out of work, and a number of factories had gone out of existence. \\ orkers were not receiving big wages, and profits ranged from 1 to 4 per cent. The industry could not stand the 5 per cent reduction proposed. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent— Stratford) contended that the industry liad had too much protection. A number of small factories had sprung up in different parts of the country, and none of them was efficient. The New Zealand industry had a protection against British footwear of nearly 75 per cent. The Dominion was paying nearly £1,000,000 in excess of what it would pay if there were no duty. The reduction was small enough. Many People Employed

Mr. R. McKeen (liabour —Wellington South) said if the test of maintaining an industry was efficiency, what about the dairy industry. In a few 3'ears the people of the Dominion had given the farmers £1,000,000 in the way of fertilisers. The boot industry employed a large number of people, and all the materials used were produced in the Dominion. Mr. H. Holland (Government — Ohristchurch North) said it was not the importation of British boots that New Zealand manufacturers feared, but the importation of Australian boots. He appealed to the Minister to restore the duty to 25 per cent. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent— Egmont) said that the people of New Zealand were paying too much for footwear. The industry had been in existence for 25' years, and if it was not efficient now, it should be. He contended that the general British preference was a mistake. It should be confined to the United Kingdom and other Dominions placed on a different footing. He thought the reduction was timely. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour — Christchurch East) said, if the New Zealand boot industry had had the same protection as the Australian industry, it would have been well on its feet. The industry was natural to NewZealand, and should receive the support of the farming community. Room for Rationalisation The Minister of Customs. Mr. Coates, said he could not see that the reduction would affect the New Zealand industry. He thought the industry could remove many of its own difficulties. There was room for further rationalisation. Mr. R. A. Wright (Government — Wellington Suburbs) contended that the reduction in the tariff would not be passed on, but would go into the hands of some middleman. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour —Avon) said he thought the Government's attitude was reckless in regard to the industry. They already had a large army of unemployed, and the Government was going to add to it. After further discussion Mr. Jones' amendment was lost by 3D votes to 28.