N.Z. TARIFFS

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1933, Page 8

N.Z. TARIFFS

VARIOUS WITNESSES,

MANUFACTURERS CLAIMS,

WELLINGTON, June 12,

The examination -of Mr- A. E. Mander, seer eta ry of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Association, by Mr F. Colbeck, representative of the Farmers’ Union, occupied most of the morjvd. ing’s sitting of .the Tariff Commission.;;

Mr Colbeck said lie was not arguing; in favour of free trade, but lie ;vvne putting the view of the New Zea-. Is. lid Farmers’ Union, which believed in preference to Great Britain #«nd that trade with the Mother Country should be fostered as far as possible. Imports and exports between the i\vo countries should at least balance. He asked Mr Mander whether he did not think there-was a difference, between Ahc principles of preference and errtoms duty. One was a matter of policy. | Mr Mander: They are both a matter of policy. ■ Mr Colbeck: Is not the United Kingdom the only country which will take New’ Zealand’s products without restriction and has actually given us preference ? . Hoes 7i«t Great Britain provide out defence ? Mr Mander denied any suggestion that New Zealand manufacturers were lenj loyal thru any other section of the’ community. •• *

“EXPLOITATION.” I i •*« Mr Colbeck said he was not sugr gesting that; He' asked whether , the profit calculated on tariff laden coiiimodities was not exploitation of the public. •

Mr Mander: What do you mean by exploitation? Mr Colbeck: The price realised in New Zealand is the cost of the imported article, plus duty, plus profit. Is that not a species of exploitation? Mr Mander said he considered that exploitation was selling at an excess profit, and "he did not admit that manufacturers were doing that.

Professor Murphy said the commission did not want an argument between. Mr ..Colbeck and Mr .Mander ■pn the , broad principles of exploitation. It would be no use to the commission. Exploitation had a different ipeaning--to different people. •/ ;•; Mr [Colbeck: I am anxious to get an admission.

Professor Murphy: , Mr Mander will not; admit" it. It is his. own fault for using tlie word. , Mr Colbeck pressed the, point as to whether labour costs were included .in the price of the imported article, but Hr. Craig said that as the question was-asked in general terms it" ‘ wiis "not capable of,. an '.lritellfgeiif answer, Mr (Colbetk: It is very , important. Dr. Craig:. Yes, it is / important, bui we want someone who , can answer it-: •’ . 'S: Mr Colbeck: Do you think preferauce should he confined to goods which, ai e IOJ. per cent, produced in the Empire?.,,,: ' ,>;4 .Mr Mander : I suggest that', Mr Colbeck: If that, was put; into operation tnere would be no ship-build-l ing. ' . . . ~

Professor. Murphy: Y T ou can bring independent evidence on, these points. Screwing reluctant admissions front the secretary of the Manufacturers’. Federation will not help the commission. •„ . '

‘Mr. Colbeck asked whether ' unemployment was due to the destruction 1 of New Zealand’s secondary . industries. Mr Mander said a considerable number of unemployed were engaged in factory production.

[Mr Colbeolc: .Unemployment ; lias not . been due to the destruction ..of secondary industries? Mr /dander: I do not know of secondary industries which have been destroyed. Mr, Colbeck: Would you be surprised?. Profeseor Murphy: "VVo do not okre whether Mr Mander is surprised or not, especially as it takes about a quarter of an hour to elicit 1 tho information.

Mr . Colbeck asked how the secondary industries would sell their increased output in view of the fact that they could not sell their present output. Mr Mander: I do not suggest an increased production until there is an increased demand.

Mr Colbeck: If farmers’ profits were restored either by a rise in prices or /i:e lowering of qosts do jiou hoi think the position of New Zealand would improve and unemployment practically disappear? Mr Mander: The position generally would improve. I , Mr Colbeck: I suggest that protection increases the costs of production.

Mr Manner: I do not admit that.

In answer to a further question Mr Mander gave it as f“5 opinion th.at quality for quality at the present time New Zealand goods were cheaper than British goods. Ha- agreed that;, if tho cost of living fell 25 per coni;- wages could l?e reduced by that amount without loss to the worker, but denied flint in such ca-'e manufactured goods could be reduced by a like amount as other cods, such as interest and imported materials had to bp taken into consideration. . , 1

Mr Colbeck said that they would have to excuse him if he took a l«ng tin:,a to bring out the facts.' He ca’tb'o ■from the country. (Laughter.) ’fHb nsiffnt whether there would be a-.less intelligent oommunitv if there we|g' no. secondary induefri-n. ''f

Mr Mancler; J, d° hot say that.;

■v:Mr Colbeck : j am glad. I was'rather hurt about it and 1 was going, to thank you on behalf of the Farmers’ Union.

IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN,

; Mr Colbeck asked whether the British manufacturer .was being “drowned” by the tariff and,Mr Mander replied tiiat last' year New Zealand- imported ,£16,51X1,01)0 worth of goods from Great Britain and, also paid £9,000,000 overseas,.in debt service: Surely from this it, could, .not ■‘be argued that tlie British ma(:ru-:iac-turcr.was. being sqcezpd out.

K; Mr Colbeck asked wheether imported goods did not enter into the cost ; bf' living, and received a reply in the affirmative. He then asked whe- ■ tlier Mr Mander was aware that the Arbitration Court was required by law to fix wages, on the cost of living.

Mr Mander: No,. 'Mr Colbeck ? That 'is a ' fact, at leafet until recently.

Professor Murphy eaid that such a lpw had never been in operation. No statutory direction' had beori given as the basis for wage calculation, although it was laid down in a. small amendment that the cost of • living slioii 1 d: be ■ taken into consideration. The Court had refused to 1 make any pronouncement on the basis on which it axed wages. , , , . , _\ \Mr Colbeck: It is an unwritten law.

/ professor- Murphy : You need not follow that up:'l am positive on the poilit.; .. •>, Mr Mander rejected a • suggestion that, industries . were, claJiiouring for nroteefioa. . .

PROTECTION of SECONDARY

INDUSTRIES. ■ Mr Col beet ’. asked whether the secondary industries ' requited 30 per cent, production. . • , : Mr Mander replied, that on the whole this was deemed necessary: in order to bring New -Zealand in line with the Ottawa agreement. He was not . making a specific percentage. Mr’ Colbeck' asked whether a section- of 'the selling above world parity wc’e 1 not. miking a charge on another' section of‘‘the community. Mr Mander ' pointed -to -the fact that farmer’s required a - - 25 per* cent, -ex- , change premium.': ; Mi- (Colbeck:.... That is another : foolish thing, ’ .but I " am. dealing - with |it;his foolish, thing...., |cDr.; Craig .said 'Mr Mander suggested that New Zealand and the United Kingdom sboo'dbe placed on the same ’’ basis arid asked 'how . that was going to be carried out. in'-, practice. ' ! '; w " ■■;-■■’• 'Mr MaUOer said • the 'suggestion was that the duty on materials imported hy. -manuffictiirers should not exceed the imposed in the United

Hr. Craig" ikaid 'that ’he did mot tlrtrik'that would make, for a stal/.e tariff arid- it would be impossible to' adriunister/it.’ He asked for the 'reason .-.wlijr -fe/ Mantfer. suggested that i the’ Britmji • profereribe/-should apply [only on' -goods • which were 100 pfer Ice.nt.. British. ' ...The reply was that it would deter ißiutish -manufacturers from being dis- , loyal to '|he Empire arid encourage them to /pufehaise their inaterials with, ip the Empire. j jpi'ofesisor Murphy: Do you regard trading, with a foreigner as disloyalty? Tfjitßat d's- so the... British hnire been jdi.do'ynl for centuries. • Mander : No. ;.Professor Murphy: Your remark might, create' a wrong impression. Professor Murphy asked whether currency considerations had been taken into consideration in the assessment of the 30 per cent, protection' reqired, and ?the . answer was in 'the negative. ' : ' v ’ OTHER EVIDENCE. Mr W. H/ Pateron, a director of Adams, Bruce, Ltd., asked for a reduction ) u the duty on unsweetened chocolate .which he claimed was in reality raw material. He contended that the'rate should be about half of that imposed oil tile finished product. At present unsweetened chocolate car,ri!ed tire, same rate of duty as ortdinary confectionery. Mr- Andrew Fletcher, a director of the Fletcher Construction Company, asked for the imposition of a duty on electrically welded fabric on the ground that it interfered with " New Zealand labour.

The commission adjourned until tomorrow.