OPPOSITION TO TARIFF

Taranaki Daily News, 15 June 1933, Page 7

OPPOSITION TO TARIFF

CASE FOR FARMERS’ UNION WOULD ABANDON SUBSIDIES. UNCHANGED POLICY OF UNION. CUSTOMS FOR REVENUE ONLY. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night 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 that the policy of the union was clearly laid down in the following terms at the first Dominion conference of the union in 1902: “That taxation through Customs should be for the purpose of raising revenue and and not for protective purposes. From that day to this the union has unswervingly adhered to this policy, which advocates the abolition of all tariff duties except those for raising revenue.” The statement says: “A tariff policy to be valid and permanent must be built up on principles or, at all events, must be underlain by some broad principle or 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—the farming community, professional classes and those employers and workers who are not employed in protected industries. In New Zealand the farmers have to take the world parity price for goods. 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 artificial loading of protective duties. MANUFACTURERS CRITICISED. The statement goes on to deal with details of trade, and says, inter alia: “Our secondary industries have not shown the initiative that our farmers have done. Our manufacturers have kept their eyes fastened on small local markets only. To asisst 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 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 the increased efficiency of manufacture may be put on an export basis again. “Tariff will not create new industries. Industries can be created only by labour and capital, and tariff can divert these from one channel to another, but cannot call them into being. Further, 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 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 and protection it at present enjoys, which are purely defensive reactions to a misconceived tariff policy.” Captain Colbeck, 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 levid for raising revenue and at the same time protecting New Zealand industries. He received a reply in the affirmative.

Mr- Mander: Is the Farmers’ Union ■inking fbr a reduction of both duties? - Caplin Colbeck: We favour a revenue tariff.' Mr. Mander; Do you agree that high ayrhnnge was a subsidy to the farmers from the community? z Captain Colbeck: I am opposed to high exchange, but I believe the union sup« ports if. Mr. Mander: You agree that high exchange subsidises 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 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 tariff was removed because without the tariff they would become more efficient. Dr. Craig said that where a producer or manufacturer proposed to present a case for the consideration of the commission through an association or organisation it is desired that this should be done as soon as possible. The commission would at an early date proceed to other centres and it might be necessary while away from Wellington to hear evidence from other producers or manufacturers in the same line of business. It was obviously advisable that a case by an association. or organisation should be heard before the time arrived for taking further evidence. ' The commission heard representations on behalf of the New Zealand Cannister Company. Representatives of the firm asked that there be no alteration in the general tariff affecting the trade, but a heavier duty be imposed on goods imported in small tins. It was contended this was necessary to develop the tinmaking industry in New Zealand.