REVENUE OR PROTECTION?

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 149, 14 September 1927, Page 9

REVENUE OR PROTECTION?

GENERAL CRITICISM OF NEW TARIFF DISCUSSION IN HOUSE (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesdav. I) ISCUSSIO N upon the tariff proposals was necessarily of .a general character because members had not thoroughly familiarised themselves with the details of the altered schedules. Several members essayed general criticism, however, mainly confining themselves to tile wider effect of tariff and to tile question of whether the tariff should be a revenue one or primarily protective. Mr. H. E. Holland claimed that a revenue tariff could not be protective. Sir Joseph Ward, on the other hand, advocated a revenue tariff, and attacked the principle of a flat rate on wheat duties. Mr. E. J. Howard touched a lighter vein, and said it was a tickling tariff. "If it does not tickle the secondary industries to-morrow,” he said. "I will be greatly surprised—the secondary industries which have been expecting so much.” Reference was made by Labour members to the shipping ring which they said, could manipulate the customs tariff at will, simply by regulation of its freights. Mr. Stewart, in his reply, said that gambling always took place in anticipation of an alteration in tariff. He denied the suggestion of Mr. Howard that the Government had worked off a joke on the people of New Zealand by leading them to believe that drastic changes were to take place. If the position of Australian chaff were to be reconsidered it would have to be done in conjunction with the Australian treaty. The sliding scale of wheat duties rose and fell according to the movement of price outside New Zealand. Members must be struck with the reasonable balance provided. The percentage of goods coming into New Zealand free was very high. Replying to a question Mr. Stewart said that the Customs Amendment Bill probably would come down in about a fortnight’s time. The resolutions bringing the tariff into force were agreed to.