TARIFF CHANGES

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1932, Page 9

TARIFF CHANGES

HOUSE PASSES THE BILE

MANY LABOUR AMENDMENTS

SWEATED LABOUR FEARED

WEECTS UPON INDUSTRIES

MEASURE PASSED. INTACT

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night. The committee stage of the Customs Acts Amendment Bill was commenced in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West) •aid it appeared that the manufacturing industries in New Zealand were gradually to disappear. He believed industries which were endeavouring to get on their feet should be given every encouragement. He Instanced the tobacco industry and said he would later move an amendment with the object of removing the excise duty on the New Zealand grown article. Mr. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) said the removal of the surtax on goods from the Empire was a serious matter, especially ac goods made, in China and shipped through Hong Kong would be able to benefit.

Mr. J; A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) suggested steps should be taken to enforce the greater use of New Zealand tobacco. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) said the imposition of the surtax had enabled the manufacturers just to keep ahead of goods made by, sweated labour. Mr. J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland) said that in view of the unemployment situa(tion the removal of the tariff on any goods at the present time required most careful consideration.

The short, title was passed without further discussion,, but considerable opposition. was raised to the clause modifying the tariff with respect to confectionery, wearing apparel and textile piece goods. DANGER OF COMPETITION. - .>• ■. : . ’ .■ ■ The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, said the clause opened the door to competition from any of the British Dominions, including India. The manufacturers of the Dominion could not stand up to competition from the cheap labour of India. He was not concerned as to whether the cheap labour was in England, India or any other country, but he was concerned solely about safeguarding. New Zealand’s industries and the standard of

living. v The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said that if sn industry was carrying on- in New Zealand in a satisfactory way there was no reason why it should be protected. There was one large section which had not been mentioned during the debate, and that was the consuming public. Surely the consumers were entitled to some protection. Mr, Coates said fears had been, expressed about building tip trade. with India, but the figures showed- there was very little danger fromtKdt' source?' Mr. 'Coates quoted figures showing a comparison be-, tween importations from the United /Kingdom and those from India during the past three years’. ■ These were as; follow 1929: Confectionery, United Kingdom £104,629, India nil; apparel, £1,703,351 And £366; hosiery, £324,447 and nil; piece goods, £437,836 ' .and - £144. 1930: Confectionery, United Kingdom £11)4,675, India pil; apparel, r> £1,603,781 and £265; hosiery, £295,663 and- nil; piece -goods, £363,728 and £334. 1931: Confectionery, United

Kingdom, £58,914,- India nil; apparel, £943,730 and £224; hosiery, £217,097 and nil; piece goods, £234,589 and £55. Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill): What volume of goods is shipped from India to the United Kingdom and then shipped back to New Zealand? Mr. Coates:.! cannot tell you that. Mr. Coates said the figures he had quoted showed there was little foundation for fears regarding the importation of goods made by sweated labour. Labour members called for a division on the clause, which was retained by 41 votes to 21. LIFTING OF SURTAX OPPOSED. The clause abolishing the surtax in re«pect of goods from the United Kingdom and certain British Dominions was opposed by the Labour Party. ‘ Mr. Savage said that if this clause was defeated his party proposed to move to substitute a clause exempting from surtax; goods not produced in New Zealand. The clause was retained by 38 votes to 22. . , . Mr. H. E. Holland moved to amend the clause abolishing the primage duty in respect to goods from Australia. He said this duty had . been imposed purely for revenue raising purposes and was therefore unscientific. ' Mr. Coates said he could not accept the amendment.' ' The purpose of the clause was to grant to Australia a concession equivalent to the abolition of the surtax in respect to. imports from other parts of the Empire. It would be unfair to Australia if the abolition were made general. The amendment was rejected by 39 votes

to 22 and the clause was passed. Mr. Savage' moved an amendment to the clause dealing with Orders-in-Council under the Act. He said the amendment aimed at preventing the operation of any agreement entered into under the provisions of the Bill until such agreement was ratified by Parliament. The amendment was defeated by 35 votes to 25 and the clause was passed. An amendment was moved by Mr. J. McCombs to the. clause ratifying the recent Customs resolutions passed by the House. The amendment sought to exclude goods in the first schedule (confectionery, apparel, hosiery, textile ’ piece goods, etc.) from ratification. The amendment was rejected by 40 votes to 23 and the clause was passed. Mr. Savage sought to amend the clause which • gives the Governor-General power to reduce the excise duty on tobacco manufactured in New Zealand to conform with the reduction in Customs duty on the imported article. The amendment proposed that the excise duty on any class of tobacco grown in New Zealand should be Abolished. Mr. Forbes: What will it cost the country? Mr. Savage: Whatever it costs can be made up in other and more scientific ways. Mr. Coates said that if the amendment was adopted the country would lose over r quarter of a million in revenue. He pointed out that the clause in the Bill placed the New Zealand tobacco grower in exactly the same position as he had occupied before. . Mr. J. A. Lee contended that the increased prosperity of the industry which would follow abolition of the duty would more than compensate for any loss of revenue involved. \ Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson)

supported the amend'ment which, he said, would help to develop a primary industry and to employ labour. Mr. Forbes said liquor and tobacco had as luxuries always been regarded in all countries as articles on which 'revenue should be raised, lhe amend'ment sought lightly to give away £250,000 of revenue. Mr. Sullivan said the logical, deduction from the Prime Minister s comment was that the Dominion should neglect to develop its industries if it meant losing revenue from duties. The amendment was defeated by 4'l votes to 20 and the clause was passed. Labour members called for a division on the first schedule of the Bill, which was retained by 40 votes to 20. The Bill was then reported to the House without amendment, read a third time, and passed.. The House rose at midnight.