IMPORT CONTROL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20097, 17 November 1939, Page 11

IMPORT CONTROL

REMOVAL URGED FAILURE ALLEGED ALTERNATIVE FORMULA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE CRITICISM (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Proposals for the removal of the import control scheme were made at the Associated Chambers of Commerce conference to-day. Figures were quoted to show that as a national expedient the control plan had failed. The Auckland chamber submitted the following remit: “As import licensing is irksome, complicated and costly, and lias proved ineffectual and unnecessary for its intended purpose, the limiting factor being the volume of New Zealand credit overseas, it should be abandoned.” During the period which must necessarily intervene before abandonment can be achieved, it is suggested that the existing system should be modified in the following way: (a) Each importer to have allocated to him every six months the total sterling to which he is entitled. (b) Importers to be free to import within their sterling allowance, subject to ordinary tariff control and the prohibition of certain lines.

(c) The direction of trade to be controlled by tariff. The remit was moved by Mr. L. D. Nathan, who contrasted the incoming cargo of the present time with 12 months ago. Confidence in Banks

Mr. A. Ely, Auckland, in urging the complete abandonment of the present restrictions, said it was recognised that such a move could not be made without some transitionary period during which some form of control must be exercised, such as was employed in 1932. On that occasion, however, control was left in the hands of the trading banks who, in six months, were able to restore the London funds to normal. Had the situation been squarely faced before it became acute and had the trading banks had charge of it, the present crisis would possibly not have developed. If the trading banks were to take control now, it would be a tremendous task, but he felt the commercial community had great confidence in the trading banks. The import restrictions formed the kernel of the commercial community’s operations to-day and only by their removal could the hobbles, which now checked the legitimate operation of industry, be removed. Mr. V. E. Hamilton, Canterbury, said that constructive discussion was essential if the Government was to carry out its policy. A voice: Not if we can stop them.

Amendment Proposed

Mr. Hamilton said that as the Government desired to achieve the triple objective of controlling sterling, protecting local industry and directing trade to various countries, it. was considered by the Canterbury chamber that this aim could be achieved by a simple formula which he gave as follows: (1) Each importer to have allocated to him the total sterling he was entitled to each six months; (2) the licensing system be abolished and importers to be free to import within their sterling allowance and subject to prohibitive lines and tariff control; (3) direction of trade to be controlled by tariff. This he moved as an amendment. While there might be some who believe that everything should be left to the trading banks, one of the chief functions of the Reserve Bank was to 'budget for imports on the probable value of exports, and the Government was entitled to have its Reserve Bank do this. , , „ . Mr A. M. Seaman, Auckland, alleged that the Canterbury proposal was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the negotiations which were previously passed by correspondence between the two chambers. Replacement Costs The amendment was lost and the remit carried. . A Canterbury remit urging the Government to recognise as the underlying principle of price control, the right of a merchant to sell his stock upon the basis of the replacement cost, and to provide for this right in its regulations, was also carried. , ~, ~ The mover, Mr. J. Roy Smith, said the Government’s policy upon fixing prices was definitely the policy of monopolistic enterprise although, lie added, the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, had recently indicated his willingness to discuss any reasonable scheme covering this subject. ,Mr. Smith quoted Mr. Justice Edwards in 1920 covering points he raised in which Mr. Justice Edwards emphasised that the principle underlying the fixing of costs must take into account replacements. Mr. Smith said that unless merchants were allowed reasonable fieedom in fixing prices, they would hesitate to invest capital in establishing and stocking businesses. The conference carried a remit to the effect that, having regard to the possibility of increased hospital rates being occasioned by the operation of the Social Security Act, any extra charges in this connection should be debited against the Social Security Act scheme.