The Daily News THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1926. TARIFF REVISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1926, Page 8

The Daily News THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1926. TARIFF REVISION.

While there exists a considerable body of public opinion in favour ■ of a complete review of the Customs tariff, there is also a feeling against spasmodic amendments which may do more harm than good. When introducing in the House, on Tuesday, his proposals to amend the duties on motorcars and imported timber, the Minister of Customs intimated that he did not propose to bring down a Bill at once to give effect to the new duties, as he desired to give members time to consider whether these duties should or should not be imposed. As to motor-cars, the amended duties are mainly aimed at protecting the body-building industry of the Dominion, which is said to be languishing. The new scale of duties imposes an additional ten per cent,, in the ease of preferential British passenger carrying bodies up to £2OO dutiable value, and five per cent, on the remaining value, while under the general tariff the duty is increased by fifteen and seven and a half per cent, respectively—the body duty being calculated on the value of the complete vehicle. At present British goods of this class pay a duty of ten per cent., while the general tariff is thirty-five per cent. Obviously the increase in the latter will not materially affect the import of American ears and bodies which are turned out by the process of mass production, nor is it likely to give a stimulus to the body-building industry of New Zealand, which will probably still be mainly concerned with the construction of bodies for commercial motors, whereon no special duty is charged, being sufficiently protected at present. Those who. can afford to acquire British cars may be expected to prefer British-made bodies, so that in all probability local industry will not benefit, the only gain being increased revenue to the Customs Department. That, of course, raises the question as to what is the real purpose of import duties—revenue or protection of industries? If the object is to restrict the largely increased expenditure on imported cars, it would seem that the increased duties will prove ol little, if any, effect. On the other hand, assuming that the protection of local body-builders is a prime cause, the question al mice arises as to why that partieular industry should bo singled mil for spoon-feeding, and culls for explanation, especially in view of the fact that there are other local industries which can present an equally strong appeal for bol stering-up at the expense of l Im community. If the Dominion is to progress as it ought to do, then the modern means of rapid .transport must be used. Motorcars have become largely a necessity, and it would seem a serious matter to penalise the users for the sake of giving employment to a handful of highly paid workers in an industry the output of which cannot compete on equal terms with imported goods. For that reason the imposition of additional duties is to be deprecated. The Hon. Downie Stewart is a confirmed protectionist, and in this matter has evidently been able to over-ride the judgment of] the Cabinet, the members of

which profess a desire to bring down the cost of living. As to the new duties on timber, the Minister proposes, to impose on imported timbers duties similar to those now levied on other rough sawn timbers, such as cedar, oak, mahogany, and ash, which now pay a tariff of two shillings per hundred superficial feet. Those who are acquainted with the details of the building industry may be expected to concur in the view expressed by Mr. A. Harris, that “no matter what duty was put on Oregon timber it will be still imported, because it is so popular with builders that they will continue to use it, while the only effect of the increased duty will be to add to the price of building.” Another factor is that it can be imported in lengths much beyond those of locally grown timber, and can produce infinitely more artistic results. The "allegation that the State mills have in stock at present millions of feet of cut timber which it cannot dispose of, supplies no reason for additional protective duties; rather does it indicate the need for transferring it to centres where it would find a ready sale if submitted to auction without reserve. In this, as in the case of motor-cars, the only effect must be to increase the cost of building and thereby add to the cost of living. The surprise is that members of the House gave the proposals such ready endorsement.