TARIFF COMMISSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21979, 14 June 1933, Page 8

TARIFF COMMISSION

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD :! ' ’ft BOOT IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS (Pee United Press Association.) ’ WELLINGTON, June 13. The Tariff Commission heard further evidence to-day. Mr Allen Seaton Wmton, managing director of Roneo Office Equip ment, asked for a further, reduction of duties on steel office furniture and on certain office machines. He said that local firms manufacturing steel office furniture marketed comparatively few lines. The secretary of the Manufacturers Association (Mr A. E. Manner) said lie •would call evidence to show that two -New Zealand companies were making steel office ; equipment as their mam lines, and that representations- would be made on their behalf, . .. , Mr John James, managing director ot G. Bromall and Co. sought a continuance of the present tariff of 27 J per cent./cm waterproof clothing. He said that it the duty were continued his company could increase its output, and would very likely reduce its prices. One of the diffimlties confronting his company was the dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market at the end of the English season. , Leonard Harcourt Labone, representing the Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. (ammunition section), asked for a reduction in the duties on cartridges, percussion caps, powder fasteners, in the case of the last-narißd article, he-asked that a duty of 50 percent. be imposed on foreign fasteneis. Mr Labone said he sought protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Mitchell, managing director of Messrs A. Mitchell and; Co., Ltd., con tended that the New Zealand boot and shoe industry could never become economical This, he said, was. proved by the fad; that, despite. bolstering up over a long period of years, the number of factories was steadily decreasing Few. if anv were working on profitable lines pe cause of the ruthless price cutting going on among themselves - ZeXdof the materials used in a New Zealand made shoe came from Great Britain, and therefore it was more economical to im nort the finished article. Witness maintained that the New Zealand industry was being protected at too great a cost to the general public, which should be gjy e ° ?he opportunity to buy footwear from England, where it was capable of being pr duced more cheaply. . „ Mr Mander: You believe that if a JNew Zealand factory is not capable of pioducing at a price competitive with th of aßritish factory, the New Zealand factory should go out of. husiucss. Witness: Yes, in fairness to the public. Dr Craig: If New Zealand were cut out would you get any foreign competiNot to any great extent. . Professor Murphy; You suggest that the aggregate landing charges should be 3U per cent.? ■ ■ L ■ Witness: Yes. • / , . “Do you think it good policy to have a moveable tariff to combat currency fluctuations?” —“I do. “You really mean that an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 per cent, is a fair thing?"—“Yes.” . , Evidence i|Q rebuttal was given by Mr H. B. Duckworth, managing director ot Messrs Duckworth, Turner, and Co., Ltd., who said that in the United Kingdom the minimum union wage tor workers of over 21 years of age was 13Jd an hour, in New Zealand the minimum rate for men who had served five years in the trade, or who were over 21 years of age, whether they had served their apprenticeship or not was Is 9jd an hour, a difference of about 60 per cent. In the union boot shops in Great Britain female workers were paid BJd an hour for a 48-hour week, and in New Zealand Is 2d an hour for a 44-hour week, a difference of 75 per cent.