BRAN AND POLLARD DUTY.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 August 1931, Page 15

BRAN AND POLLARD DUTY.

PROTECTION SHOULD BE LOWERED

LUXURY AND INCOME TAXATION.

That the only way to bring down the costs of production was by a gradual reduction in protective tariffs was the opinion expressed by the executive at another stage in the meeting. This proposition will be conveyed to the Prime Minister together with the suggestion that any revenue required by the Government' should' be obtained through luxury and income taxation. ■ This decision was reached following consideration of a letter from the Prime Minister concerning a protest about the duty on bran and pollard. Mr. Forbes said it would be obvious that if an exchange premium of over 18 per cent. were° obtained on the importation of Australian products without any restrictive action the result would be to encourage the sale of such goods in New Zealand to the prejudice of local-ly-produced articles. It had therefore been considered necessary that some steps should be taken to prevent injury to the industries of New Zealand, and especially at the present time, co as to keep as many men as possible employed. Mr. Blyde maintained New Zealand, was able to stand all the competition. They had the assistance of freights, insurances, etc., and did not want any further protection to add to the cost. It would pay the New Zealand farmer better to pay the 6s 8d in the £ to the State, for he would then be better off to the extent of 13s 4d. The position of the country was realised but it was maintained that it would be better for the producers even if they had to pay the money direct to the State.

He mentioned that the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce was behind the union in the matter. Protection was costing the country about £17,000,000, but the State was getting only something under £7,000,000. This was an exporting country, and if the producers were” to carry on costs must be reduced.

Mr. R. Dunn asked if the chairman would be in favour of a subsidy instead of protection. The chairman said he was, because the wholesaler and retailer added their percentages to the duties, with the result that the consumer often paid double. This would not occur with a subsidy, which could be reviewed each year. Mr. B. White suggested it was not wise to hamper the Government by continual criticism. They . should give due acknowledgment when a reasonable explanation was given by the Government.

Mr. C. ■ H. Sorenson suggested the Prime Minister’s reply was camouflage. The farmers wanted the prices of bran and pollard reduced in order to decrease the coot of production. , ; The only way the costs of production could be reduced was by decreasing the cost of things purchased by the consumer, said the chairman. ’Of the 18 per. ;Ttp))t. exchange, 13 per cent, was being" taken as a •lumping duty. ■ . . ■ . w .... ■