THE TARIFF ON FOOTWEAR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23442, 5 March 1938, Page 27

THE TARIFF ON FOOTWEAR

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—l, doubtless in company witn numerous others of your readers have been most interested in the various comments which have appeared in your columns on the recent increases in our tariffs, but I would specially like to deal briefly with a few aspects sc far as they relate to footwear First. I would point out that I think we shall search a long way back for such a sudden change of front as ias occurred with the powers that be 'n regard to such duties, for we have only to go back to so late as the middle of. October last, when the Prime Minister declared that the advance in wages afforded by the Government had given rise to an increased demand, which local manufacturers had not been able immediately to cope with, resulting in the placing of orders overseas, mainlv in the United Kingdoni, but the Prime Minister went on to say that he considered the position would soon adjust itself. Mr Nash, speaking about 10 days later publicly declared that the boot and shoe manufacturers had been grossly unfair to the Government, adding that he had been told by one of the largest retailers in Palmerston North that there would be trouble in the boot and shoe industry later on. because manufacturers were urging retailers to, buy all they could, as prices were going up. This resulted, in some instances, in local manufacturers being three months behind in their orders, which had led importers tc indenting from overseas, with the result of a general overstocking: this in turn had naturally resulted in a decrease in the power of retailers to order further, till their present stocks were reduced; and this likewise led to a restriction of manufacturing, with its inevitable concomitant of reduced employment in footwear factories, the position being accurately described by Mr Nash himself when he stated, to use his own words: " One wise man informed me that manufacturers had sold themselves out of a job." Now, Sir, this statement was made a little more than four months ago, but to-day it is proposed to raise the duty yet higher to protect the local manufacturer, who has very largely, if not entirely, brought the present position on his own head. Moreover, I understand that a remarkable statement in the shape of a fully-docu-mented protest against any further increase in the duty on footwear from the United Kingdom, prepared by the Incorporated Federated Association of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland, was submitted some few months ago to the Government, and I believe I am right in saying thnt either the Prime Minister or Mr Nash publicly admitted that such was both an able and impartial setting out of the actual position, and that the protest against further imposts was a reasonable one. But in the face of all this, it is now proposed to raise the duty against certain lines 'at least of British footwear a further 5 per cent., which means that the landin charges on such footwear will reach the incredible total of 73 per cent, on the original cost in the United Kingdom. I fear I have already trespassed far on your space, but may i, in closing, call attention to what to my mind are the two most serious reactions from this policy? First and most important, is the reaction among the large population in the footwear manufacturing districts of the United Kingdom such as Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, etc.|, who must naturally feel sore against this country in the inevitable loss of orders, and these people are doubtless at the moment large consumers of our primary products, and will tend to retaliate in tfte only way possible by favouring other sources of supply, especially as they will be fully alive to the highly Javoured position granted to the producers of New Zealand under the Ottawa Agreement. Second, and while this appeal applies only to ourselves, -t is none the less urgent, and-it is that, despite all the manufacturers' associations and their representatives may say, these increases are bound to lead to an enhanced price to the consumers, that is, ourselves, and so we have ■•till another rise in the already most excessive and yet everincreasing cost of living.—l am, etc., March 4. Consumer.