TARIFF COMMISSION

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1933, Page 6

TARIFF COMMISSION

THE BOOT INDUSTRY. EVIDENCE CONTINUED. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, June 13. Mr Leonard Hnrcourt Labone, representing the Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (ammunition section), asked for a reduction in the duties on cartridges, percussion eap.s, powder (snorting) and zinp fasteners. In the civmi of the laUer article, lie asked that a duty of fifty per cent, be imposed'on the foreign iastener. Mr Labone said that lie sought protection on the ground that foreign countries could produce more cheaply than the United Kingdom. Mr A. Mitchell, managing director of A. Mitchell and Co., Ltd., contended. that the New Zealand hoot and shoe industry could never become economical. 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 T , were working on profitable lines, because of tbe ruthless price cutting going on among themselves. Fully fifty per cent, of the materials used in the New Zealand nude shoe came from Great Britain and therefore it was’'more economical to import thg finished article. Witness maintained that the New’ Zealand industry was being protected at too great a cost to the general public, who should he given the opportunity to buy footwear from England, where it was capable of being produced. more cheaply. Mr Mandor: You believe that if a New Zealand factory is not capable of producing at a price competitive with that of the 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 cut, would you get any foreign competition ? Witness: Not to any great extent. "Professor Murphy: Do yon suggest that the aggregate landing charges should be 30 per cent? Witness: Yes. Do you think it is a good policy to have ,a. -moveable tariff to ’combat currency fluctuations. Professor Murphy : I do. Witness: You 'really mean that an aggregate protection from all sources of 30 per cent, is a fair thing

Professor Murphy : Yes. Evidence in rebuttal was given by Mr H. B. Duckworth, Turner and Co., Ltd., who- said thiit. in the United Kingdom the minimum wage for workers over twenty-one years of age was l;5V(] an hour; ip. 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 Is OJdLan liotir, a,.difference of about 60 per cent. Iff th<runwn"lw3fc' shops"in Great' Britain, female workers were paid BJd an hour, for a 48-hour week, and in New Zealand they were paid Is 2d an hour for a 4.4rhour week, a difference of 75 per cent-.' . . ■ ■’ Allen Seaton Winton, managing director, itoneo Office Equipment, asked for a further reduction in duties on steel furniture, and certain office machines. He said that local firms manufacturing steel office furniture marketed comparatively few lines.

The secretary of the Manufacturing V,sedation 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. PromaH and Co., sought a continuance of the present tariff of 27J- per cent, on waterproof clothing. He said that if the duty continued the company would increase the output, and very likely reduce prices. One of the difficulties confronting the company war; dumping of job lots on the New Zealand market, at the end of the English season.