TARIFFS BLAMED.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 368, 11 December 1930, Page 5

TARIFFS BLAMED.

\ * V FOR PRESENT SLUMP. Captain Celbeck’s Address. tik The effect of tariffs in New Zealand was the subject of an address by Captain F. Colbeck at the meeting of the Morrinsville Chamber of Commerce on Thursday. Dealing with the cost of tariffs to the consumer, he said that about one third of the things consumed in New Zealand were imported. He estimated the total increased cost to New Zealand consumers of both New Zealand and imported manufactures to be -£17,250,000, but out of this the Government got about £4,000,000 in customs revenue. Probably the chief argument against free trade was that it would ruin the secondary industries. He quoted the classic example of freetrade New South Wales and protectionist Victoria to disprove this contention. The population, exports and imports of New South Wales had increased much more rapidly than those of Victoria, which appeared to prove that protection had not benefited Victoria. As to the effect on markets, if imports were reduced there would be less demand for our exports. Reduceu imports would mean an increase in freights on exports to compensate for half cargoes inwards. Protection also had a demoralising effect on the people, according to American observers. It was blamed for the corruption in Government in protectionist countries. For the most part the tariff fell on exporters, which meant f the 50,000 or 60,000 farmers. It was pushing farmers off the land. The was how to reduce costs. If were not reduced New Zealand would cease to become an exporting nation. Quoting from costing sheets obtained from an Auckland business, Captain Colbeck stated that the London price of a line of blazer coats was £3O 3s 9d, the duty £ll 3s 9d, total charges £lB Is 9d, an increase of 60 per cent, on the London price, and with a profit of 33 1-3 per cent, the price to the consumer was £64 11s 3d. A line of ladies’ underwear costing £lB 0s 3d in London had a duty of £6 13s sd, and the total cost was £39 18s 3d. He gave numerous other . examples to show that the tariff increased the cost to the consumer of practically every dutiable article. “ I do not think I exaggerate when I say you cannot land goods in New : Zealand and show a 10 per cent, prof .fit without charging 100 per cent, igover London price. The position toSday is that if it were not for this fey stem of tariffs we could be making Tnoney at the present price of butter. It is increasing the cost of everything. If I am right ' there Is £17,000,000 added to the cost of Irving in/ New Zealand. Businessmen are just as much interested as farmers are. What is the manufacturer going to do ? He cannot sell his goods and he cannot export. We are simply playing cut-throat. This slump is different from others. We could explain other slumps, but we cannot explain this.” Prices of foodstuffs • had been falling ever since the re■ttum to the gold standard, but in other countries had kept the prices of New Zealand produce up until recently. After a discussion, on matters arising out of the address a vote or thanks by acclamation was accorded Captain Colbeck.