LOCAL INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 131, 5 June 1919, Page 11

LOCAL INDUSTRY

ONE-SIDED PREFERENCE

Special evidence on the Customs tariff was given by Mr. W. 15. Montgomery, Comptroller of Customs, before the Parliamentary Industries Committee yesterday afternoon. Mr. Montgomery detailed the measures taken in Australia to regulate the tariff. Under the inter-State commerce law a Tariff Board had been established. The Federal Comptroller of Customs was a member oE this board, which had gen-' oral functions relating to trade and industry.. It was to study Australian trade, examine openings in new markets, and investigate such matters as wages, immigration,,- labour supply, shipping bounties, and commercial profits. This board would not propose any change of the tariff until the parties concerned had given very full information on all points: The board had no powers to amend the tariff. It merely made recommendations. He undei-tood that its recommendations had not had very much influence with Parliament' in Australia. The process of tariff amendment in Australia was the same as in New Zealand. There was power in each case to admit goods free of duty, but this power was restricted in New Zealand to materials used exclusively for the fabrication of goods within the Dominion. The Australian powers were rather wider. Under the Australian tariff New Zealand was treated as a foreign country. Britain had preferential treatment, but New Zealand was in the same position in relation to Australia as the United States. New Zealand gave Australia preferential treatment. The Dominion gave South Africa preferential treatment in reference to feathers, fish, fruit, maize, tobacco, tea, wines. A reduction of 3 per cent, in the duty on other goods was made in favour of South Africa. New Zealand did very littlo trade with South Africa. Australians had complained that South African wines entered New Zealand in bulk and were sold as Australian. There was no check on this process. The reciprocal tariff treaty arranged with Australia by Mr. F. 51. B. Fisher, he said, had lapsed before completion owing to a change of Government in the Commonwealth. "Raw material " was very hard to define. A bootmaker called leather raw material, while a tanner called it a manufactured product. There had been case, of deliberate dumping of oversea, goods in New Zealand, with the object of killing ,a local industry. The attempt to protect the local agricultural implement industry through the Monopoly Prevention Act had taken the form of a refund of duty on material used for local manufacture. At the same time the Act provided fpr fixing prices of the locally made implements. The Act was still in fores, but its machinery had not been used fully by the manufacturers, who had the right to apply for protection. Some manufacturers of agricultural implements were, getting refunds of duties paid on their raw materials.

The Committee adjourned until this morning, when additional evidence, will be taken.