OTTAWA TREATY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 601, 3 November 1932, Page 5

OTTAWA TREATY.

Manufacturers Not Being Treated Fairly. LABOUR CRITICISES BILL. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, November 3. The opinion that the reduction in Customs duty will so affect secondary industries that it will tend to increase unemployment, is held by Christchurch Labour members. This fact was revealed in the House last night when they trenchantly criticised the Customs Bill. In introducing the attack Mr Sullivan said the clothing industry was particularly affected by the Bill. One manufacturer employing a thousand hands told him that the new tariff meant either a reduction in staff or a decrease in wages. The artificial silk industry, which had been particularly efficient, was being jeopardised, and in the case of this business the passing of the resolutions giving effect to the Ottawa agreement had already meant a reduction in wages. The hosiery industry also was seriously affected. It appeared that Mr Coates was content to keep protection for the secondary industries down to a low level, p Dvided he could secure additional advantages for farmers. Justice should be done to all sections of *the community. The New Zealand manufacturers were not getting a fair deal when they were being asked to compete with the products of sweated labour countries. Mr Sullivan said the whole agreement reached at Ottawa was detrimental to the interests of the Dominion as a whole and now, as if adding insult to injury, the Government was asking for ‘urther powers by Order-in-Council to nake further such agreements. It was lothing more than fiscal dictatorship. Referring to an amendment by Mr kVilkinson, which was aimed at the vheat duties, Mr M’Combs said it eemed that Mr Wilkinson not only wished the farmer to give his wheat for lothing but to pay a bonus to anyone vho would take it away. That was >roved by the fact that in a loaf of

bread there was 1.64 d worth of flour, while Mr Wilkinson wanted a reduction in the duty on wheat equal to 2£d on the flour in the loaf. The argument of Mr Wilkinson really was ridiculous, and he believed there would be an overwhelming majority in the House to reject it. The suggestion that the surtax was not a protective duty was answered by Mr M’Combs, wbo said that Wellington importers had been advised by the Customs Department that the surtax had been regarded as a preferential duty when the difference between British and foreign duties was being computed. It was not a matter of four items being affected. The removal of the surtax meant that duties were being lowered on 306 items, and this meant a reduction of 22* per cent in the ad valorem duty. The result was that where goods had been charged 25 per cent duty protection had been removed equal to 6.2 per cent. Where the duty was 30 per cent protection had been removed equal to 7.4 per cent. Where the duty was 35 per cent protection had been removed equal to 8.6 per cent. Where the duty was 40 per cent duty had been removed equal to 9.9 per cent. The livings of hundreds of New Zealand manufacturers and thousands of workers were being attacked. After traversing the agreements reached between Canada and Australia, where additional protection had been given British goods by increasing the foreign tariff, Mr M'Combs said that a reduction of 25 per cent in duties would have sufficient effect to put 50 per cent of the secondary industries out of business. New Zealand duties were lower than those in any other British Dominion and New Zealand was entitled to the same amount of preference as Australia was given.