TARIFF COMMISSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22023, 4 August 1933, Page 10

TARIFF COMMISSION

THE AUCKLAND SITTINGS FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 3. The Tariff Commission continued its sittings to-day. William Parkinson and Co., Ltd., asked for the removal of the duties on imported granite. Witness for the firm said the United Kingdom imported monumental and decorative granite in the rough from Finland and Scandinavia. It was obtained duty free in Britain, and could then be exported to New Zealand as dressed or polished granite to compete with the local product, which was prepared from granite subject to a 10 per cent. duty. The firm asked that granite be duty free, whether imported from Britain or elsewhere. This would place them on the same footing as their United Kingdom competitors as regards the duty on raw material. Granite from Finland was imported under a Scottish name.

John Hislop, on behalf of the Auckland branch of the United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives’ Association, presented in general terras a case for the reduction and abolition of duties on United Kingdom goods. He contended that under article 7 of the Ottawa agreement there should be no tariff unless it could be shown that the goods -were being produced in New Zealand, and the production could be assured of sound opportunities for success. When there was such assurance, then article 8 became applicable, providing for allowing United Kingdom goods reasonable opportunity. Under article 7 New Zealand markets should be free to Britain in eases where no local industry had developed. He contended that it was beyond the province of the Tariff Commission to permit the revenue aspect to influence its decision.

Questioned by Mr A. E. Mander, Mr Hislop agreed that if, upon investigation, it was found that the New Zealand tariff was below the level of the Ottawa formula, New Zealand would have done all that was .required of it. Mr Mander: Do you contend that Britain is dissatisfied with our tariff?

Mr Hislop: Most emphatically I do. Mr Mander quoted recent press cablegrams, including Mr Forbes’s statement that the British authorities were fully satisfied.

Mr Hislop: My answer is that the British people honestly believed that New Zealand would faithfully carry out the Ottawa agreement, and the British Government is prepared to wait for the findings of ,this commission. COST OF BEER •DECLINE IN CONSUMPTION. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 3. “ There is barely fid a gallon difference between the New Zealand duty and the duty on imported beer,” said Mr H. C. M'Coy, manager of the Auckland branch of New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., in pointing out to the Tariff Commission the relatively small margin on which local brewers had to work. “ Considering that manufacturers in Great Britain and in the other dominions were able to produce at a much lower cost in pre-war days,” said Mr M'Coy,we had a preference of Is 9d a gallon to-day. There is barely 6d a gallon preference. That we consider to be insufficient.” He emphasised that New Zealand brewers had to pay more for barley than Great Britain and the other dominions. Eor instance, Australian brewers could purchase at about half the New Zealand cost, Mr M'Coy said. He did not know the reason for reducing the tariff on British beer by Is per gallon last March, but he assumed that it was done in accordance with the Ottawa agreement. Referring to the excise duty, Mr M'Coy said the rate was increased from sfd to Hid per gallon in 1921, when heavy taxation was general. However, while land tax, income tax, totalisator tax, and amusement tax were each reduced in subsequent years, no reduction was made in the excise duty on beer, which was maintained at the 1921 figure until 1930, when it was increased to Is, while in 1931 it was raised to Is Cd. Comparing the years 1921 and 1929, Mr M'Coy showed that while the rate of duty had been increased in the period by 100 per cent, and the population had increased by 21.42 per cent., the consumption had dropped 9.3 per cent., showing that the decline had occurred before the present economic conditions assorted themselves. The consumption in 1929 was 13,010,990 gallons, which had progressively declined to 9,780,511 in 1932.

“At the present time the lightening of taxation is essential,” said Mr M‘Coy. “It is necessary both to help industry by the release of money for productive work and to give people a little courage. The decline in the consumption of beer, unless checked, will cause embarrassment to the Treasury in future years.” The chairman (Dr Craig) : What rates do you suggest on imported and on excise beers? —I think Australia should pay the same rate as we have to pay. I think we are entitled to 3s 3d or at least 3s per gallon. What about the United Kingdom? — While the exchange rate remains as at present we are all right. I should say 3s a gallon if the exchange comes off. Professor Murphy: Why did not English beer undersell you before the exchange went up? —W’e had bigger production then.

In what way? —Lower excise. Answering further questions Mr M‘Coy said it -was in, lager beer that Australia was the principal competitor with the local product. Professor Murphy: But lager beer is only a small proportion of the beer consumed? —It is growing. It is becoming a modern drink.

But it is not the beer usually sold over the bar counter?—No, it is mainly a table beer.

Dr Craig said he thought the decrease in the consumption of beer was principally due to three causes, the economic position, the increase in excise duty, and the development of home brewing. “ I should say further that a small factor is the spread of motoring,” said Professor Murphy. “ Men do not want to be caught in a collision when they are smelling of beer, although I suppose that factor would have greater effect oh the sale of spirits.”

REVISION OF CUSTOMS TARIFF NOT POSSIBLE TILL NEXT YEAR. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 3. Following the statement that a complete revision of the Customs tariff will not bn possible until some time next year the president of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce (Mr II- Turner) wrote ro the Acting Prime Minister (Mr J. G. Coates) pointing out that the announcement has created considerable uncertainty among the business community, and asking whether it will be possible to expedite matters so that the tariff can come under a comprehensive review some time during the coming parliamentary session. “ We have evidence,” wrote Mr Turner, “ that a substantial amount of business is being held up until the revised tariff comes into force. You will recognise it

is very important to increase the volume of imports in order to rectify the present disparity in trade.” In reply Mr Coates writes; “It is clear that a complete review of the tariff cannot bo satisfactory unless it is very thorough; and it is not possible at this stage to give any indication of the date of conclusion of the Tariff Commision’s inquiries and deliberations.”