TARIFF CHARGES

Southland Times, Issue 22042, 15 June 1933, Page 8

TARIFF CHARGES

THE FARMERS’ UNION EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSION BURDEN OF PROTECTION (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, June 14. The Tariff Commission to-day heard evidence submitted by the New Zealand Farmers’ Union. This takes the form of a substantial document which traverses the whole ground of fiscal policies in general and says the policy of the Farmers’ Union was clearly laid down in the following terms at the first dominion Conference of the union in 1902:— That taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of raising revenue and not for protective purposes. From that day to this the union had unswervingly adhered to this policy which advocates the abolition of all tariff duties except those for raising revenue. The statement says that the tariff policy to be valid and permanent must be built up on principles or at all events must be underlain by some broad principles of policy, otherwise it cannot be permanent and is a source of danger and uncertainty to the community. The burden of protection falls on the non-protected interests of the country, viz., the farming community, professional classes and those employers and workers who are not employed in protected industries in New Zealand. ' Farmers have to take the world parity price for goods. A tariff can be of little advantage to them for their prices are fixed abroad. They are not affected by what happens here as regards price, but their costs of production are materially increased by the artificial loading of protective duties, but we do not advocate that existing protective tariffs should be removed in toto immediately as such would result in internal trade chaos. Removal should be gradual with a definite objective in view of having them materially reduced before the terms of the Ottawa agreement are next considered. The statement goes on to deal with details of trade and says inter alia:— “Your secondary industries have not shown the initiative our farmers have done. Our manufacturers have kept their eyes fastened on small local markets only. To assist them in catering for these they have cried out for and have obtained more and more protection with the result that their industries have grown up as hot-house plants. Our manufacturers have failed to put a single line on an export basis.” After dealing with the manufacturing statistics for 1927, which is taken as the last normal year, the statement says: “We are firmly convinced that less protection will ultimately prove beneficial to our manufacturers as such will compel them to seek out and concentrate their energies mainly on the production of those lines of goods most suited to New Zealand conditions and which, through increased efficiency of manufacture, may be put on an export basis. Again the statement' says: “A tariff will not create new industries Industries can be created only by labour and capital and a tariff can divert these from one channel to another, but cannot call them into being. Further, it is said: “We strongly assert that the existing fiscal policy imposes upon the consuming public a burden far in excess of what it should have to bear. We maintain that millions are spent needlessly every year owing to this pernicious policy. The union has no objection to a true revenue tariff of moderate dimensions, balanced where appropriate by countervailing excise duties. If this policy is carried out the union will be prepared to sacrifice any subsidies ana protection it at present enjoys which are purely defensive reactions to the misconceived tariff policy.” Captain Colbeck, a representative of the Farmers’ Union, was lengthily examined by Mr Mander, secretary of the Manufacturers’ Federation. Mr Mander asked whether some Customs duties were levied purely for revenue while others were levied, for raising revenue and at the same time protecting New Zealand industries. He received a reply in the affirmative- , „ , tt • Mr Mander: Is the Farmers Union asking for a reduction in both duties? Captain Colbeck: We favour a revenue tariff. , Mr Mander: Do you agree that nigh exchange was a subsidy to the farmers from the community? Captain Colbeck: I am opposed to the high exchange, but I believe the union supports it. , Mr Mander: You agree that high excliange subsidizes the exporting section of farmers? Captain Colbeck: I don t agree Mr Mander: It reduces his liability. Captain Colbeck: It does not enable him to sell at a profit. , Professor Murphy: You do not think the effect of the exchange is beneficial to him? , , , „ Captain Colbeck: It undoubtedly prolongs his life. Replying to a further question, Captain Colbeck said his ideal was Empire free trade. , Mr Mander: Did you. express the opinion that many existing industries were unsuitable to the Dominion. Captain Colbeck said that if they were put on an economic basis he did not think they would be unsuitable. He did not think the industries of the Dominion would go out if the taritt was removed because without the tanii they would become more efficient. Upon conclusion of the case for the Farmers’ Union the commission heard representations on behalf of the New Zealand Canister Company Representatives of the firm asked that there be no alteration to the general tariti affecting trade, but a heavier duty imposed on goods imported in small tins. They contended this was necessary to develop the tin-making industry in New Zealand. The commission adjourned until toThe chairman, Dr. Craig, said that where a producer or manufacturer proposes to present a case for the consideration of the commission through . an association or organization, it desired this to be done as soon as possible, lhe commission will at an early date proceed to other centres and it may be necessary while absent from Wellington to hear evidence from other producers or manufacturers in the same line of business. It was obviously advisable that the , case by an association or organization should be heard before the time arrives for taking further evidence.