TARIFF COMMISSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22068, 26 September 1933, Page 8

TARIFF COMMISSION

THE CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS PROTECTION FOR BARLEY GROWERS (Per United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, September 26. Before the Tariff Commission to-day Mr Samuel Harvey Maddren, secretary of Messrs Maddren Bros., and Mr Ernest Carlyie Searell, accountant to the same firm, gave evidence concerning binder twine. The company claimed that continued protection was necessary and justifiable. The industry was suited to New Zealand, and the present tariff was no higher than was necessary to meet the higher costs of manufacture. Mr Charles Howard Hewlett, manager of the Canterbury (New Zealand) Seed Company, Ltd., grain merchants and malsters, urged that the duty on imported malt and malting barley should be retained. The present duty was 5s per cental on British malt and Australian malt and 7s on general, and in malting barley to be used in the manufacture of beer or otherwise than as stock food, 2s per cental on all imports. It was essential that the duty should be retained, said Mr Hewlett. Otherwise dumping into the North Island breweries from Australia would occur, as the freight from Australian ports to Auckland was 35s a ton, compared with 24s 6d from Lyttelton to Auckland. The malt required in New Zealand had been made locally from barley grown in the Dominion. Thus New" Zealand labour was employed in handling New Zealand raw material, and several industries had benefited. The barley used in malt houses and breweries averaged 500,000 bushels per annum over the last five years, the 1932-33 figure being 403,000 bushels. New Zealand, continued Mr Hewlett, could and did produce enough barley for its requirements. The malsters and brewers of New Zealand had expressed their willingness to pay a duty of 2s per bushel on the rare occasions when they needed to import, recognising the importance and benefits of barley growing to New Zealand and the need for farmers to be protected from outside dumping. The production of beer, Mr Hewlett said, had fallen from 11,512,238 gallons in 1931, when the duty was lid and Is per gallon, to 8,692,857 gallons for the year ended March 31, 1933, when the duty was Is 6d per gallon., That decrease had been reflected in the quantity of barley needed, with the result that the acreage had been smaller. The acreage thus cut out was used to produce other goods, the market for which was already glutted. As the extra duty of 6d per gallon absorbed more than the total net profits of the brewers the extra duty had to be passed on to the public either in the shape of a higher price or a smaller quantity for the price, and was bound to affect consumption straight away. " Can you state the profits made by New Zealand Breweries, Ltd.?" asked Professor Murphy. "If they still make a profit then it appears that the industry can stand the duty." Mr Hewlett said he believed that a profit had been made, but the duty had been passed on to the consumer, with a consequent decrease in trade. They were getting to the limit, both the malsters and the barley growers. Witness said he considered that no business could stand increased taxation of over 500 per cent, since 1914. That was excessive. No industry should be singled out for such treatment. Witness recommended that some relief was necessary in that direction. Mr Norman John Suckling gave evidence on behalf of Messrs Robert Malcolm, Ltd., respecting cotton goods, buttons, elastic, haberdashery, wearing apparel and general drapery. He asked that British cotton piece goods remain on the free list. British buttons were free and he asked that a duty of 50 per cent, be put on Japanese and Italian buttons. Witness said that elastic was duty free, wearing apparel (British) 27J per cent., hosiery 275, and cotton shoe laces 20 per cent. He asked that the general tariff on elestics should be 50 per cent, and wearing apparel 55 per cent. On hosiery he asked that the British duty be 20 per cent, with a general duty of 45 per cent. Shoes and laces he urged should be free from the British 100 per cent, general tariff. British goods get heavy competition from Japan. On all cotton fabrics for carpets and rugs witness asked that the present duty of 25 per cent. British and 50 general should be reduced, to British 20 per cent, in part, 15 in part, arid general 45 and 40. Mr Ernest W. Reed (secretary) and Mr Francis W. J. Bel ton (engineer of the Christchurch Gas Company) spoke of the duties on ammonia, one of the byproducts in gas manufacture. The present rates were, British free, general 4d per lb, and Australian, free. They asked that the rates be British 20 per cent., Australian 20 per cent, American and Continental 50 per cent. Mr Belton said the company had for some time considered the manufacturing of benzol, but had not considered it a commercial possibility if benzol had to pay the same taxation as petrol. Under present conditions, with complete exemption from taxation, the proposition would be just worthwhile to the company. Mr George Henry Holford, representing Imperial Chemicals Industries, said that sulphate of ammonia was at present duty free from all sources. He asked that the new rates be British free, and general 15 per cent. The duty would not increase the price to the farmer, but would stop sporadic foreign price cutting, chiefly from Japan.