TARIFF REVISION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21980, 15 June 1933, Page 8

TARIFF REVISION

THE FARMERS’ VIEWPOINT REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS PROTECTIVE DUTIES CONDEMNED (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 14. The Tariff Commission to-day heard 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 clearly laid down in the following terms at the first Dominion conference of the union in 1002 —That taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of raising revenue, and not for protective purposes. From that day to this the union has unswervingly adhered to this policy, which advocates the abolition of all tariff duties, except those for raising revenue.” The statement then says: “A tariff policy to be valid and permanent must bo built upon principles, or at all events must be underlain by, some broad principle 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 nonprotected interests of the country—viz., the farming community, the professional classes, and those employers and workers who are not employed in protected industries in New Zealand. The farmers have to take the world parity price for their 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 the artificial loading of protective duties.

“ But we do not ndvocate that the existing protective tariffs should be removed in toto immediately, as such would result in internal trade chaos. The removal should be gradual, with the definite objective in view of having them materially reduced before the terms of the Ottawa agreement are next considered.” The statement goes on to deal with details of trade, and states, inter alia: “ Our secondary industries have not shown the initiative that our farmers have done. Our manufacturers have kept their eyes fastened on small local markets only, and 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 hothouse 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 it will compel them to seek out and concentrate their energies mainly on the production of those lines of goods which are moat suited to New Zealand conditions and which through increased efficiency of manufacture may be put on an export basis.” Again, the statement says: “A 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. . . “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 to a true revenue tariff of moderate dimensions, balanced, where appropriate, by countervailing 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 reactions to a misconceived tariff policy.” . During the afternoon Captain Colbeck, representative of the Farmers’ Union, was lengthily examined by Mr A. 1. Mander, secretary of the Manufacturers’ Federation. Mr Mander asked whether some Customs duties were levied purely for revenue purposes, while others were levied for raising revenue and at the same time protecting New Zealand industries. He received a reply in the affirmative. Mr Mander: Is the Farmers’ Union asking for a reduction of both duties? Captain Colbeck: We favour a revenue tariff. Mr Mander: Do you agree that the high exchange was a subsidy to the farmers from the community? Captain Colbeck: I am opposed to the high exchange,, but I believe the union supports it. Mr Mander: You agree that the high exchange subsidises the exporting section of farmers?

Captain Colbeek: I don’t agree. Mr Mander: It reduces hie liability T Captain Colbeek: It does not enable him to sell at a profit. Professor Murphy: You do not think that the effect of the exchange is beneficial to him?

Captain • Colbeek: It undoubtedly prolongs his life. Relying to a further question, Captain Colbeek said his ideal was Empire Freetrade. Mr Mander; Did you express the opinion that many of the existing industries were unsuitable to the Dominion? Captain Colbeek said that if they were put on an economic basis he did not think they would he unsuitable. He did not. think the industries of the Dominion would go out if the tariff were removed because without a tariff they would become more efficient. TIN-MAKING INDUSTRY (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 14.

Upon the conclusion of the case for the Farmers’ Union the commission heard representations oh behalf of the New Zealand Canister Company. Representatives of the firm asked that there should bo no alteration in the general tariff affecting the trade, -but a heavier duty should be imposed oil goods imported in small tins. It was contended that this was necessary to develop the tin-making industry in New Zealand. The commission adjourned until tomorrow.