HARVESTER EXCISE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 574, 31 July 1909, Page 5

HARVESTER EXCISE.

CONSUMER'S INTEREST. SELLING TERMS MOT OBSERVED. • M'KAY COULD CORNER (By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Gopyrlffht.l (E-ec. July 30, 10.55 p.m.) 1 Melbourne, July 30. The report of the Royal Comniission on stripper-harvesters has been tabled in the House of Representatives. The Commission finds .that only one firm sold its article at £65, the price of harvesters fixed by Parliament. The rates of interest charged on time-payment sates ra/igo from 11 to 53 per oent. the cost of selling and distributing machines averaged slightly over 24 per oent., sometimes running is high as 50 per ceiit. of the oost, price. The cost price in the case of Mr/ M'Kay's Sunshine harvester was about £47 for a five-foot machine. ' ' ;

The Commission's'recommendations include the complete transfer of industrial ■ control to the Commonwealth, arid the constitution of a. Board of Trado with, ample power, wliich may bo exercised in the interests of the consumer. The Commission also recommends that steps be taken to prevent sellers charging exorbitant rates of interest, the Commission suggesting that'tlib limit be 10 per cent. ' '

Tho report expresses a belief that Mr. M'Kay would, if there were no outside competition, soon be able to command tho wholo of. the homo trade in harvesters.

Mi; S. Sampson (M.P.' for Wimmera), in a minority report,' disagrees with' the proposed transfer of the industrial control to tho Commonwealth, and traverses several other findings of the majority's reportj '

- AN UNREALISED AIM. .In the Excise "Act and New" Protection proposals of the Commonwealth the same general pnnoiple has . been 'more or less observed : ofaivjcliiig the bsiieSts of tariff protection^' as equitably as possible,- between the manufacturer, the worker, and the consumer—a tripartite division not easily enforced. The idea, is that the manufactured article -is- to receive a certain protection against foreign competition; on condition that.it pays a certain "fair and. reasonable" wage, and sells at a fair and reasonable; price. Conditional Protection. ;■ The scheme.: received a great impetus as a result of evidence given before a Commission Some years ago by Australian manufacturers' of stripper-harvesters, including Mr. M'Kay, .the "Sunshine" .lihi-vester worlts. Generally 'speakliig, the evidence of. the Australian manufacturers was. that their making of stripper-harvesters and. other -agricultural implements—Was in diuiger, of being wiped out by American competition. It: was'alleged that the {United States makers had, in tho first place pirated the. patterns of the stripper-harvester, ..which was an; Australian invention, and a purely Australian. machine, d&isjned for Australia's peculiar requirements. Having successfully copied the stripper-harvester, the Allien'can'makers were muter-selling in the Australian market, in order, to crush the Australian -makers. . This was possible because the Americans, having a huge protective: duty, and being unassailable in their .own home market, were able- to dump 'stripper-harvesters in Australia' at loss thhn cost, while tlio Ainerienn-consumer paiir'considerably more 'than cost. It, was (further' alleged that,, when" the • Americans; by persistent under-selling, had f. completely caphired the Australian market, they would then charge exorbitant prices, pick Up their lost '•mOhey, and exact ransom from the Australian farmer. 7 ■ >

Selling Prices. This was.the picture of'ruin painted by the Australian .manufacturers: on the. one hand. Oh.'the.-other hand, they declared that.if-they : were given ,an absolutely protective duty excluding tho American; article,' they would not raise .the: prices of their' own manufactures. In . fact, the high cost of. selling, necessitated oy efforts to compete .witlr-tlw hustling* Americantravolleri. would be reduced if such cohrpotition ceased, aiid Australian machines might bo sold cheaper. There was some talk of fixing the prices: to .be charged to the consumer! The .^manufacturers' were sure that the competition of one Australian.'firm with another would regulate, prices, and, that a protective dwy would riot ( lead to an Australian trust. On this latter point the CominissionVmajority report cablcd to-day diverges from'the views of the manufacturers,, for it-affirms that a control of the Australian output could be secured by, Mr. M'Kay. It also states that Australian manufacturers with- one exception aro" -not charging to consumers the price which Parliament laid down as a. condition of: tho protection conceded. ■ -7. ■

Wages Paid. _'As to wages paid, some light was thrown on Hns. when Mr. M'Kay applied under the Excise Tariff Act for a certificate exempting hini from payment of duties. . In accordance with the law, the application was made" to the President of the Commonwealth /Arbitration Court* Mr. Justice.Hk'ffins, who refused-it, on the ground that Mr. SI Kay, hqd not paid "fail 5 and reasonable . wages,' in", accordance. with tho' Act. Tlvo Commission's report further goes'to confirm that the operation of the excise scheme is not what was aimed at. The proposal now is to tak# tlie wholeadministration from the arbitration courts and put it in the. hands of a Federal Board of . Trade. This is the controlling body that was heard'of in connection with the .New Protection scheme when Sir Wm. Lyne was in the second Donkin Cabinet. But since then times have ohanged. •