TARIFF COMMISSION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19515, 14 June 1933, Page 8

TARIFF COMMISSION

FURTHER EVIDENCE IN WELLINGTON. BOOT INDUSTRY ATTACKED. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, June 13. The Tariff Commission heard further evidence to-day. Allen Seaton Winton, managing director of Roneo Office Equipment, asked for further reduction in duties on steel office furniture and certain office machines. He said local firms manufacting steel office furniture marketed comparatively few lines. The secretary of the Manufacturers Association (Mr Mander), said he would call evidence to show that two New Zealand companies were making steel office equipment as their main lines, and representations would be made on their behalf. John James, managing director of G. Lrcmall and Co., sought continuance t f the present tariff of 271 per cent, on waterproof clothing. He said that if the duty was continued the company could increase its output and very likely reduce prices. One of the difficulties confronting the company was the dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market at the end of the English season. Leonard Harcourt Labone, representing Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. (ammunition section), asked for a reduction in duties on cartridges, percussion caps, powder (sporting), and zipp fasteners. In the case of the last named article, he asked that a duty of 50 per cent, be imposed on foreign fasteners. Mr Labone said he sought protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Kingdom. The Boot Industry. A. Mitchell, managing director of A. Mitchell and Co., Ltd., contended that the New Zealand boot and shoe industry could never become economi- ! cal. This, he said, was proved by the fact that, despite bolstering up over a long period of years, the number of , factories was steadily decreasing. Few. ! if any, were working on profitable \ lines, because of the ruthless price- 1 cutting going on among themselves. Fully 50 per cent, of materials used in New Zealand made shoes came from Britain, and therefore it was more economical to import the finished article. Witness maintained that the New Zealand industry was being protected at too great a cost to the general public, who should be given an opportunity to buy footwear from England, where it was capable of being produced more cheaply. Mr Mander: “You believe that if a New Zealand factory is not capable of producing at a price competitive with that of a British factory the New Zealand factory should go out of business?” Witness: “Yes, in fairness to the public.” Dr. Craig: “If New Zealand were cut out would you get any foreign competition?” Witness: ‘Not to any great extent.” Professor Murphy: “You suggest that the aggregate landing charges should be 30 per cent?” Witness: “Yes.” “Do you think it good policy to have a movable tariff to combat currency fluctuations?” —“I do.” “You really mean that an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 per cent, is a fair thing?”—“Yes.” Evidence in rebuttal was given by H. B. Duckworth, managing director of Duckworth, Turner and Co., Ltd., who said that in the United Kingdom the minimum union wage for workers of over twenty-one years of age was 13id an hour. In New Zealand the minimum rate for men who had served five years in the trade, or who were over twenty-one years of age, whether they had served their apprenticeship or not, was l/9Sd an hour, a difference of about 60 per cent. In union boot shops in Great Britain female workers were paid 85d an hour for a 48-hour week, and in New Zealand 1/2 an hour for a 44-hour week—a difference of 75 per cent.