MANUFACTURING COSTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23083, 8 January 1937, Page 8

MANUFACTURING COSTS

ALLEGATIONS OF LOST TRADE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE CONTENTION OF MINISTER (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Jan. 7. " It would appear necessary again to state the Government's position in regard ,o the representations made by the Manufacturers' Federation that the effect of the recent industrial legislation would be to make it virtually impossible for the New Zealand manufacturer to compete with overseas manufacturers in the domestic market," said the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. G. Sullivan) to-day. "The Prime Minister has repeatedly informed manufacturers that the Government will not permit the product of efficient New Zealand manufacturers to be displaced by goods produced in countries with a lower standard of labour payment, and to this end negotiations have been conducted with other countries with the object of paving the way for Government action, if it is found to be vitally necessary to the efficient New Zealand manufacturer, to grant further protection against importations of overseas-made goods than he has through the present tariff, exchange, etc. The Government must, however, have evidence of the necessity for such action before it can place a definite proposition in front of an overseas Government, and I should have thought this would be apparent without further reiteration by me.

"From recent press editorials, however, it seems that a certain section of the press is of the opinion that repeated statements of loss of trade take the place of evidence," added Mr Sullivan. " The officers of my department and the Department of Customs have been continually examining allegations of loss of trade to overseas manufacturers, and reports I have received, far from showing that the New Zealand manufacturer is on the verge of closing his doors, indicate exceptional activity in our factories, with evidence in some cases of retailers being unable to obtain prompt deliveries. To quote some instances, which show that individual manufacturers have permitted their feav of loss of trade to convince them that it has actually occurred, investigating officers have been told in several cases when they have called for figures to establish statements that have been made that the manufacturer was too busy to supply them, and that he did not wish to go on with the matter. Again, another manufacturer who was prominent in the original representations made to the Prime Minister and myself, said he had experimented with the 40-hour week and had proved he could not meet overseas competition. When called upon to produce evidence that his orders had been diverted overseas, he replied that he was still receiving orders and was very busy. He said he would think over his previous representations and advise the department in a few days whether or not he wished to go on with the matter. Since that time, which was several months ago, nothing has been heard from this particular manufacturer.

" These are not isolated instances," said the Minister. "They serve to show that not all the statements made regarding loss of trade to New Zealand manufacturers are based on evidence. I am fully aware that importations into New Zealand are increasing, but so also are New Zealand manufactures. There may be efficient industries which may find it very difficult to retain their domestic market because of increased costs of manufacture and so soon as there is evidence of this state of affairs, the Government is prepared to redeem its promise, but the Government has a duty to the public as well as to the manufacturers, and obviously cannot take precioitate action without its being clearly necessary."