TARIFF CHARGES

Southland Times, Issue 22073, 21 July 1933, Page 8

TARIFF CHARGES

COMMISSION’S INQUIRY BISCUITS AND CONFECTIONERY THE LOCAL OUTPUT (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, July 20. The retention of the existing duties on biscuits and confectionery was sought before the Tariff Commission by Mr R. H. Webb, of Aulsebrook’s, and Mr C. V. Smith, of Cadbury-Fry and Hudson. The total purchases of raw material in the last three years was given as £1,391,167, 04 per cent, being of New Zealand origin, including 52 per cent, purchased direct from the primary industry. Figures for the industry showed over 2000 productive workers and over £200,000 per annum for wages. The output value of New Zealand biscuits and confectionery was over £132,000. Mr. W. A. Tate (Greytown) asked that fireworks or crackers used by orchardists to scare birds be admitted free of duty. He stated that to net an orchard was very expensive. Birds were increasing and becoming more a nuisance every year. He had used fireworks for 20 years. Professor Murphy: Have you found them effective? —“Yes, but we use ammunition too, otherwise the birds would simply sit on the crackers.” British Footwear. Substantial reductions in the duties on British footware were sought by Mr H. C. Murray on behalf of Bostock and Clark Ltd. and other shoe importers. Mr Murray said that during recent years the local boot and shoe industry had made rapid development and a high standard of efficiency had now been reached. He submitted that continued protection was not necessary and that in accordance with the Ottawa Agreement, the United Kingdom manufacturer should be given an opportunity for reasonable competition on a basis of relative costs and economical and efficient production. “Surely the local manufacturers must now recognize that goods pay for goods and that we cannot have one way traffic,” said Mr Murray. In view of recent happenings at Home this was now a national question and there was urgent need for them to review their position and be prepared to make concessions where possible. It would appear an absolute necessity to do this in order to protect primary industries and for the ultimate welfare of the country as a whole. It was therefore more than disappointing to be unable to find even one instance of a local manufacturer being prepared to concede any part of their present duty protection. If they were unable, to make this concession the onus should be on the firms concerned to prove that they really needed a continuance of the present duty and that they were not relying on the tariff to act as an embargo on the importation of English footwear.