TRADE PREFERENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17165, 15 October 1926, Page 7

TRADE PREFERENCE

NEW TAXATION* PROPOSED MANUFACTURERS’ SCHEME A REMIT TURNED DOWN (Special to the Herald.) . CHRISTCHURCH, this day. “In order to encourage trading within the Empire this association recommends that the income tax regulations be amended so as to provide a differential scale of taxation, based on the percentage of New Zealand, of British, and oi foreign goods used in trading. I hi* remit, supported by the Auckland delegates to the annual conference of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, was considered at the session to-day, when an entirely new method of encouraging New Zealand-made goods, and placing a restriction on the importation of foreign goods was proposed and discussed. . “It requires something more than patriotism to cheek the importation- of foreign goods,” said Mr. G. Finn. Auckland, in moving that the remit he adopted. “There are two problems : now to trade between tha Empire, and how 6get the best prices for our goods. Trading within the Empire has been talked about for some time, but it has never been treated in a business-like way. FOREIGN IMPORTS. a “We import 30 per cent, of foreign '■'goods, and foreigners only take onotenth of our products. That is not creditable. We must bind the Empire together with something stronger than sentiment, for there is no sentiment in business. The man who sells foreign goods does not commit anv breach of the law, and should not suffer any loss of self-respect. The sale of foreign goods should be restricted by a duty on the goods, and an additional duty on the profit of the seller. For the rest, the patriotism of 'the* people should he appealed to. Protection is needed for the country—protection on sound economic lines. REASON FOR PROTECTION. “Without protection we should be for all time merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. Protection should not be for 1 the drawing of revenue only; it should be for the welfare and improvement of the country’s industries. Some are. exempt from taxation. The farmer does not pay income tax. and while we cannot do without the farmer we can do without the man who sells foreign goods.” The motion was seconded by Mr. J. Findlay, Auckland. “Does this refer to manufactured goods, or to raw material?” asked Mr. F. Campbell, Wellington. Air. Finn: “To all goods." Mr. J. A. Frostick, Christchurch, said the fact that New Zealand was passing through a period of depression had to be considered. The standard of living was high, and he was sure that no one wished to see it any lower, but protection was needed to keep uo the standard and to protect the industries. He was satisfied that if the Government gave the manufacturers of New Zealand their rightful market the price of goods would not be raisdd by one shilling. MANY DIFFICULTIES. Mi*, T. J. Burton, Wellington, congratulated Mr. Finn on introducing the remit, but he could see that ail kinds of difficulties would arise in formulating legislation to deal with the suggestion. To put it briefly,, he thought it would b<j quite unworkable because of the. amount of book-keeping that would be entailed.- • “The proposal would complicate our \ method of taxation, and I am opposed the remit.” said Mr. L. R. Partridge. ‘.♦The most direct and economic method is for continual preference. We should concentrate on that line.” Mr. G, W. Reid, Dunedin, said his delegation would have to oppose the remit on the grounds of its obvious impracticability. He agreed with Mr. Burton that the federation should avoid lending its name to such a proposal. A TWO-EDGED SWORD. “It would be only .a two-edgod sword, and we could get wliat we want through the preferential tariff,” said Mr. 1Woolf, Christchurch. - Replying, in support of his remit . Mr. Finn said the impracticability of the ’ scheme could he easily, disproved, although ho would not go into the matter at that stage. He was in favor of protection, but protection should be kept as low as possible. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”) “If another ten per cent, is added to the protective tariff it raises the cost of living,” said Mr. Finn. Mr. A. J. Frostick, Christchurch: No, no. I can prove that is not so. * The Auckland delegator added that the object of the remit was to keep down protection as low as possible. Efficiency and low cost of production were absolutely necessary. Protection might give prosperity to manufacturers, but it would not produce real progress. ( The remit was rejected, the Auckland delegatus being the only supporters.