Protection for Textiles Opposed

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 173, 12 October 1927, Page 16

Protection for Textiles Opposed

CALL FOR EFFICIENCY MINISTER’S OPINION (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Dissatisfaction with the position of textile piece-goods, including textiles of wool, in the Customs tariff schedule was expressed by several members of the House of Representatives this evening, and Mr. W. J. Jordan, Manukau, moved that the item be postponed for consideration by the Government with a view to increasing the duty. The Hon. D. Bud do, Kaiapoi, and Mr. H. L Tapley, Dunedin North, advocated an increase of the British preferential tariff from 20 per cent, to 25- per cent. The Minister of Customs, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart, said that it was the easiest thing in the world to give increased protection, but the consequence was that, as long as an industry knew that all it had to do was to ask for further protection, it would make no attempt at all to remedy the defects its own organisation. He did not profess to be an expert in the woollen industry, but he had been told by experts from Australia and America that it was impossible for New Zealand mills to hold the market when they were all making small quantities of several particular lines, instead of each specialising on one. He did not think that the statement that higher protection would furnish more employment was good ground for increasing the duty. He had to take a longer view of it than that. Mr. T. M. Wilford, Hutt: The Minister's statement summed up meanS that he has found these industries guilty of want of effort and want of initiative, and he proposes to line them for all time, as far as he is concerned, because he has told us that this is his last tariff. Who is going to carry that fine? The people of New Zealand, who

have to use goods will have to foot th bill and pay the fine the Minister is in flicting on the woollen companies c New Zealand. Mr. T. K. SSidey, Dunedin South, sug gested that the question should be re ferred to a tribunal to which mill own ers would have an opportunity c showing that their mills were efficientl conducted, since the Minister appar ently was satisfied that this was nc so. On a division Mr. Jordan’s amend ment was defeated by 38 votes to 2S Messrs Tapley, E. P. Lee, Oamari Glenn, Rangitikei, J. McC. Dicksoi Chalmers, and Field, Otaki, vote against the Government.