DUTIES OPPOSED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23527, 16 June 1938, Page 9

DUTIES OPPOSED

REPLY TO MANUFACTURERS SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS The United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives’ Association (Inc.) has issued the following reply to the statement recently published by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation: — The United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives’ Association (Inc.) replies as under to the statement issued by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation: We, the United Kingdom Manufacturers and New Zealand Representatives’ Association (Inc.) still say that interests which represent the consumers of about 90 per cent, of our primary exports are entitled to ask for fair reciprocal treatment. We have repeatedly said, which the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation chooses to ignore, that we desire to work in cooperation with New Zealand s-condary Industries, and realise their necessity always provided, first, that they are economic, and second, that the United Kingdom producer has full opportunity of reasonable competition. This is in accordance with an agreement signed at Ottawa by the New Zealand Government. and the United Kingdom granted in return a free market for our primary produce—surely a good agreement for New Zealand. “We further say that we realise the difficulty in which rising costs may place an industry, but we cannot agree that prohibitive duties on English manufactured goods will provide a solution. A typical instance of an article of everyday requirement costing 85 p"r cent, on invoice price to land in New Zealand, will show that the ditties and landing charges etc.. on English goods have reached the limit compatible with the terms and spirit of the agreement quoted above, end the purses of New Zealand buyers. “ In reply to the statement that the 25 per cent, exchange rate does not act as a further dutv on English goods, we would ask the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation to state unequivocally whether or not, in the event of. say. a 10 per cent, reduction in tne oresent rate, would press for an increase in duties to compensate for the loss of this protection. We would be pleased to have their assurance that, if the exchange rate drops they wil' b? quite content. “ The suggestion that importers could chrrge any price they wished, but for local industry competition, is incorrect. We would remind the ("deration that there are a good many importers of each class of imports and the competition amongst them is quite sufficient to keep prices at the right level, apart from the fact that they are not the big bad wolves the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation would endeavour to make them. Evidently the Manufacturers’ Federation is becoming aware of the growing feeling of the consuming public and primary producers against unduly high duties on imports from Die United Kingdom. “A reply to the question why overseas firms have started here can best be supplied by the firms themselves, but perhaps an examination of the high —almost prohibitive—duties levied on their goods previously imported from the United Kingdom would throw some light on the matter. The men Don of recent duty increases on English foot wear is rather ill-advised as the buying public have probably not yet forgotten this increase on article of necessity "The United Kinedom manufacturers and New Zealand representatives Association would repeat its desire for co-operation with economic New Zealand local industries but cannot agree that a policy of unduly high duties against imports from New Zealand’s best customer —Great Britain - will help New Zealand industry in particular or New Zealand as a whole Costs cannot be brought down Py im posing additional costs, and the buying public is entitled to ask when the spiral will stop rising. We suggest that a policy of reduction in duties on English goods would help to solve the problems of New Zealand industry by reducing their costs, besides making a practical ges’ure of reciprocity 'Jew Zealand's greatest market."