TARIFF PASSED.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 December 1921, Page 5

TARIFF PASSED.

THE DEBATE CONCLUDED. SPEECH BY THE PREMIER. TREASURY’S NEED OF REVENUE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The third reading. of the Customs Amendment Bill was moved by Mr. Massey in the House this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford), said he regretted there was no proposal in the Bill to set up a Tariff Board. The two dominant principles in the Bill were the preference given to Britain and the desire of the House to afford protection to local industries. It was one of the peculiarities of protection that it sometimes abused its privilege, and it became necessary to protect the consumers against exploitation by the industries they had protected. This had been the experience in Victoria, where they had a protective tariff, and he quoted tli% provisions of the statute there which set up a tariff board to keep this necessary watch upon the tactics of manufacturers.

He agreed with the protection given to wheat in the new tariff, and he was glad the Premier had agi*eed to place the revenue derived from the tyre tax in a separate account, so that the money was earmarked for the upkeep of main roads. He thought the power taken by the Government in connection with Orders-in-Council was unconstitutional.. There ought to be an effective review \of all tariff proposals by Parliament before Orders-in-Council took effect. He regretted his proposal to take the duty off tea was defeated, and the result was that the price of tea had gone up immediately to the public. He endorsed the proposal to enter into reciprocal arrangements with Australia, and he hoped there would be no undue delay in coming to such an arrangement. LABOR’S ATTITUDE. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) said he was rather taken by surprise by the debate being called upon so early, and he was therefore not prepared to place before the House the viewpoint of Labor in quite the way he would have liked. The Labor Party contended that those industries which could not be satisfactorily carried on under protection should be taken over and worked by the State. That was not, as many people supposed, socialism The boot industry was a case in point. For some reason boots could not be made as cheaply in New Zealand as m Australia, yet the Government would not put on a high protective tariff to save it, nor would they take it over, because they thought that was bordering on socialism, and so they were between the devil and the deep blue sea, and the devil would get them in the end.

The timber industry was another case. Timber could not be got at a price at which people could build houses, and therefore the time had come when the people as a whole must do wnat the Government had failed to do. There should be in the Customs legislation clauses enabling the Government to deal effectively with those who exploited the people, but the Government was not prepared to put any such clauses into the Bill before the House.

The tariff, which the House had practically passed, would materially affeet the wages of the working man. and he enumerated articles, including tea and sugar, which he claimed would be increased in price as the result of the new duties, and so increasing the cost of living. He then proceeded to charge the Government Party with inconsistency in voting against British preference. He protested against any proposal to reduce income tax at present, and considered that rather there should be a change in the incidence, so that big incomes would have to pay more. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) argued that if no protection were given working men would find themselves in competition with men working for pay, so that if New Zealand industries were to live the men would have to accept a lower standard of living. He supported the taxation of luxuries. Coming to details, he protested against the tariff of 20 per cent, on British cotton piece goods and the elimination of the 15 per cent, duty on Japanese silk. MINISTER REPLIES TO DEBATE. Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) emphasised that the original tariff proposals were revenue producing, and what it already amounted to was the transference of taxation from one class of the community to another. He again attacked the Government for taking too much power out of the hands of Parliament. They were hoping to have got a final and stable tariff, but they got nothing of the kind, and no business man could rely upon it being adhered to, so great was the power of the Government to take off or put on duties.

The Hon. W. Downie Stewart defended the powers taken by the Government as necessary to the effective working of the tariff, quoting the recent Order-in-Council issued in connection with gas cookers as a case in point. That step effectively prevented the dumping of these cookers, and when the circumstances were explained to those concerned they admitted the step was justified. As soon as the Order-in-Council had served its purpose he revoked it, and in spite of the criticism levelled against him he would do the same again. He contended duties had not been raised against the working man. Most of the duties complained of by Mr. Holland were old duties. The trouble with the Labor Party was that it would not declare its policy on big tariff questions.

Complaint had been made that precious stones had been admitted free, but the fact was that there was so little importation of precious stones that it would be absurd to maintain a serial staff to check smuggling. Neithey art nor music had been severely taxed under the tariff’. Taking the duty off silk from Japan was perfectly justified, because such silk was a raw material of New Zealand blouse-makers, whose industry was worthy of encouragement. With regard to Mr. Wilford’s suggestion for a tariff board, he thought rt would be better to wait and see how it -worked out in Australia. Ho hoped a reciprocal agreement would be made with Australia at an early date. If it was not arrived at, then it might be necessary to do something with regard to tea coming in through Australia, but that could be done by the much discussed Order-in-Council. He paid a tribute to the excellent work of the Customs officers and the good temper of the House, which would enable them to pass a tariff fair to all, in spite of many conflicting interasts.

PREMIER’S SPEECH. Mr. Massey, in reply, said he believe ed this was the most satisfactory tariff ever passed in New Zealand. It wax' neither a free trade or protective tariff* but it was just the tariff the country) wanted. He was glad to see no party,' question had been raised in connection) with the tariff, particularly no cry of town and country, and therefore the passage of the Bill was au object lesson to all. His advice to all sides was to drop party and support good government when they have it. The tariff was to some extent a revenue tariff, but it was more—it was a taxation distributing tariff. He had framed the tariff in such a way as to enable him to reduce land and income tax. So far he had been able to reduce land tax by 10 per cent., and he did not think there was a single member of the House who favored the continued high taxation on land. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau); “Put ma down as one.” Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) said Premier was not strictly correct in claiming the rebate as a reduction in taxation.

Mr. Massey claimed his contention was perfectly sound, as everyone could get the benefit of the reduction. Continuing, Mr. Massey said he was out to reduce both land and income tax at the first possible moment, because no country could be prosperous while staggering under heavy taxation.

On the subject of a tariff board, as suggested by Mr. Wilford, he was prepared to give it consideration, but his personal opinion was that a board was not necessary. Our position was not quite the same as Australia. Speaking of Australia, he mentioned that telegrams had passed between the Premier of Australia and himself with regard to a reciprocal tariff, and he believed they would be able to come to such an arrangement as would place the countryon a better footing than ever before The steps taken to give preference to Britain were most valuable, and went a step further than hitherto. He felt it was most satisfactory, and would not be gone back upon. \ TEA AND SUGAR.

He defended the tea duty on the ground that the Treasury wanted money. It was not imposed by the present Government; it was put on by the National Government, and put on for the same reason as it was being kept on. It produced £150,000 in revenue. Something, also, had been said about the duty on sugar, but British produced sugar was free, and New Zealand was enjoying the cheapest sugar in the world under the arrangement made with the Colonial Sugar Company. He thought they were justified in the measure of protection given to local industries, and what Parliament had dona would do good. He regretted he would be unable to do more in the direction of taking the duty off children’s boots, but he was bound to conserve the finances of the country. He thanked members for the assistance given in passing the tariff. He did not think they should go longer than five years before they revised the tariff again, as that was long enough, but they would always be able to look back upon this tariff as onfe of the most useful ever passed by Parliament. The Bill was read a third time and passed. 1