TARIFF DUES

Southland Times, Issue 22041, 14 June 1933, Page 7

TARIFF DUES

INQUIRY CONTINUED BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY EFFECT OF PROTECTION (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 13. The Tariff Commission heard further evidence to-day. Allen Seaton Winton, managing director of Roneo Office Equipment, asked for a further reduction of the duties on steel office furniture and certain office machines. He said local firms manufacturing steel office furniture marketed comparatively few lines. The secretary of the Manufacturers’ Association said he would call evidence to show that two New Zealand companies were making steel office equipment as their main lines and representations would be made on thenbehalf. John James, managing director of G. Gromall and Co., sought a continuance of the present tariff of 27J per cent, on water-proof clothing. He said if the duty were continued the company could increase its output and very likely reduce prices. One of the difficulties confronting the company was the dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market at the end of the ’ English season.

Leonard Harcourt Labone, representing Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. (ammunition section) asked for a reduction in the duties on cartridges, percussion caps, powder (sporting) and zipp fasteners. In the case of the latter article he asked that a duty of 50 per cent, be imposed on the foreign fastener.

Mr Labone said he sought protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Kingdom. Mr A. Mitchell, managing director of A. Mitchell and Co., Ltd., contended that the New Zealand boot and shoe industry could never become economical. This, he said, was proved by the fact that despite bolstering up over a long period of years, the number of factories was steadily decreasing. Few if any were working on profitable lines because of ruthless price-cutting going on among themselves. Fully 50 per cent, of the materials used in a New Zealand-made shoe came from Britain and therefore it was more economical to import the finished article. Witness maintained that the New Zealand industry was being protected at too great a cost to the general public who should be given an opportunity to buy footwear from England when it was capable of being produced more cheaply. Mr Mander: You believe that if a New Zealand factory is not capable of producing at a price competitive with that of the British factory the New Zealand factory should go out of business?

Witness: Yes, in fairness to the public.

Dr Craig: If New Zealand were cut cut, would you get any foreign competition? Witness: Not to any great extent. Professor Murphy: You suggest that the aggregate landing charges should be 30 per cent.? Witness: Yes.

Do you think it good policy to have a moveable tariff to combat currency fluctuations?—l do.

You really mean that an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 percent. is a fair thing?—“Yes.” Evidence in rebuttal was given by Mr H. B. Duckworth, managing director of Duckworth, Turner and Co., Ltd., who said that in the United Kingdom the minimum union wage for workers of over 21 years of age was 13|d an hour. In New Zealand the minimum rate for men who had served five years in the trade or who were over 21 years of age, whether they had served their apprenticeship or not, was l/9§d an hour, a difference of about 60 per cent. In the union boot shops in Great Britain, female workers were paid BJd an hour for a 48-hour week and in New Zealand 1/2 an hour for a 44bour week, a difference of 75 per cent.