RISK OF EXPLOITATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1049, 13 August 1930, Page 9

RISK OF EXPLOITATION

SAFEGUARDING POWERS IN CUSTOMS BILL REFORM LEADER’S COMMENT | THE BUN’S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. Tues. By 11 o’clock the resolutiona as to the revised customs tariff had been passed, and the Customs Amendment Bill, embodying the proposals contained in the resolutions, was introduced by Mr. Forbes. The new part of the Bill was that relating: to the increased powers of the Minister regarding the remission duties if necessary to prevent exjfioitation. Before explaining the clauses of the BiU, Mr. Forbes, in response to an early question by the Leader of the Opposition, the Right lion. J. G. Coates, said that the duties collected since the imposition of the extra customs duty from July 23 to August 12, J 930, were as follow: —Customs duty, £415,133; petrol duty, £97,755; tyre tax, £4,968; beer duty, £5,513; total, £541,373. Tho customs revenue, excluding tyre tax and petrol duty, totalled £415,132. These figures represented an annual revenue of £7,195,000, whereas the estimate of the customs duty was £8,530,000. If the duty collected during the past three weeks was an estimate of the true return, there would be a considerable shortage, but the customs figures were not based upon that return. Mr. D. Jones (Reform —Mid-Canter-bury): Would the Prime Minister supply the total figures collected. Otherwise the figures are of no value. , Mr. Forbes regretted that that was not possible in the present circumstances, as already various ports had to be wired for the furnishing of figures. To Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent— Stratford), Mr. Forbes said that he had no comparison with the figures for the similar three weeks of last year. POWERS OF MINISTER Explaining the Bill, Mr. Forbes said that it contained new provisions to enable the Minister of Customs to remit or reduce the duty payable on goods, if the producers or manulacturers of similar goods in Zealand raised their prices because of the increased protection afforded bv the Government’s proposals. This applied only to goods affected by the Bill or those affected by subsequent legislation. It was not desired that any hardship should be inflicted on manufacturers, and provision had accordingly been made that the section was not to apply if the Minister was satisfied that the increased prices were due solely to increased production costs, and that such prices had been fixed in accordance with the manufacturers’ usual commercial practice. Another clause extended the powers conferred on the Minister by section 11 of the 1927 Act. That section authorised the Minister in certain cases to reduce or remit the duty payable under the general tariff, but so that the rate would not be lower than that under the British preferential tariff. Owing to the increased preference granted under the present proposals, it was necessarv that the interests of our people should be safeguarded, but just as it was necessary in the interests of the consumers of this country and of its industries that competition should exist between manufacturers in the Dominion and those in the countries outside New Zealand, so it was desirable that competition should be allowed to exist between British manufacturers and those in other countries. FOREIGN PRICE CONTROL Again, manufacturers in other parts of the Empire might take advantage of the increased preference to raise their prices to New Zealand importers, or they might sell their goods to the Dominion under onerous conditions as to importation into or disposal in New Zealand, or there might be a world fall in prices, and because of the advantages caused by the tariff, these decreased prices might not bs passed on to New Zealand importers. Again, exporters to the Dominion or their agents might endeavour to control the prices of goods produced locally, or might endeavour to limit the sales of New Zealand goods to certain definite districts or international combines might use the preference for their own ends. For those and other reasons it was considered that the provisions in the Bill should be passed. Mr. Coates said that several important features regarding tariffs had been pointed out. It was essential that primary producers should be protected and it was also essential that production should be increased. There was tho question of British preference, but the British manufacturer was as quick as anyone to take advantage of tariff privileges. Personal!}-, he would have preferred to see the Government reduce the British tax rather than increase it. British manufacturers, as l’ar as motor-cars were concerned, would find it hard to get any advantage from the Customs duties before the House. NECESSARY U.S. IMPORTS Tho general impression was that it was not wise to buy too much from foreign countries, but at the same time there were industries in the country . which were built up on material obtained from America, and the tariff suggested would put them out of business. It would be better to impose a sliding scale reaching its maximum in 12 months and thus give such people time to change over to some other business. If Great Britain was not manufacturing articles essential to the people of New Zealand, there was very little to be gained by imposing a heavy tariff. As far as Canada was concerned, it would only be fair to adopt some attitude to retaliate against the tariff wall being raised against New Zealand produce. _There were difficulties regarding the 75 per cent, content, because many parts of cars were made on the Continent. In 1926 British manufacturers said that it was impossible to guarantee a 75 per cent. British content. The position was somewhat similar in Canada, and New Zealand should know what percentage of content was Canadian. PETROL-TAX AND ROADS There was the problem of petroltax. If he and his colleagues could not draft a comprehensive scheme for reading without taking away all the grants which had previously been given they would give up politics for ever. The Government talked about money for the backblocks. but where was the scheme? Quoting from figures, Mr. Coales said that the farmer on 90 acres had paid £62 in rates last year. A Member. Why are they so high? Ml*. Coates: Because the settlers want a road fit to travel on. The position suggested by the Government, he said, was that money'’ for the roads was to be from the petroltax and not from the Government. They were taking a false and backward step and he could not see how they could get very' far before they did something to relieve the producer. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith: Shouldn’t the user pay? Yes. the user should pay, Mr. Coates replied, but how could the man on 90 acres go on paying £62 a year? Continuing, he said that it was no us© going along higgeldy-piggeldy. The Minister of Lands, the Hon. E. A. Ransom: How long have they been going along higgledy-piggledy? Mr. Coates: For about two years, j Mr. Poison moved that Mr. Coates | should be granted an extension of l time, and this was agreed to. | Continuing. Mi*. Coates said that a

man might only be 10 miles from a main road and not have a road. The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. A. J. Murdoch: He could be regarded as in the backblocks. Mr. Coates: That would mean grading roads, and why don't you do that? The Minister of Public Works, the Hon. W. B. Taverner: We never said it wouldn’t be (lone. Mr. Coates: The hon. gentleman laid himself open by that remark, but I’ll not take advantage of it. Mr. Coates concluded by suggesting that the Government should remove the duty from stock foods.