The Tariff.

Progress, Volume XVII, Issue 4, 1 December 1921, Page 88

The Tariff.

Much criticism is manifest in the daily Press of the manner in which the Government handled this most important matter and rushed it through the House, and to those who listened to many of the debates it would seem that this criticism is amply justified. The need of a strong Opposition was strikingly illustrated throughout the Tariff debate, for it was manifest that, though Mr. Massey had declared that it would be conducted on non-party lines, no suggestion or. amendment would be accepted or seriously considered if it were in any way at variance with the view of the party in power; and these views unfortunately appeared to be dictated not by any broad national outlook but by the effect any particular proposal might have upon the prospects of the party in power at next election. In fact, any semblance of a broad national outlook seemed to be deplorably lacking in all parts of the House, as most speakers appeared to treat each item from the standpoint of his own constituency or of some particular section of industry, or individual (in however small a way) in such constituency. In its criticism of this matter the Wanganui Herald of December 6th refers to the Tariff Commission and says : " In anticipation of amendments to the tariff during the present session, the Government, some time ago, appointed a Commission' to consider the whole question. It might have been expected that the Government would have submitted the report of this Commission to Parliament before asking the latter to take in hand the task of amending the tariff." It goes on to say that this course would have furnished the House with some sort of a guide as

to the whys and wherefores" of the tariff proposals and schedules as introduced, but instead of this Parliament was set to work upon the task of considering the tariff and various alterations had actually been passed before even part of the Commission's report was made available to members. Even now the most important part of the report dealing with the actual recommendations as to the schedules and items of duty has not been disclosed by the Government. (And in this connection it may be pertinent to ask why? Is the Government afraid to publish the actual recommendations of a Commission specially set up to take evidence throughout the country, and who should thus be in far better position to judge the necessities of each particular case or item than is Parliament, or even Cabinet itself!)/ In a matter of such grave national import the people should certainly know what the specific recommendations of the Commission were in respect to every item, even though such might not happen to suit the political exigencies of a particular party which happen to be in power. The Herald very aptly concludes: —"The ahsurdity of asking the Commission to report on matters it was intended to settle without its aid seems to be equalled only by the contemptuous indifference thus displayed by the Government towards Commission and Parliament alike-. The foregoing figures were taken out for the purpose of rebutting the many statements recently made by members of Parliament and the builders in different parts of the New Zealand to the effect that New Zealand timbers—and in particular kauri —could be purchased in Australia at a cheaper rate than in this countryThey will, however, be of interest to sawmillers, and on this account are published here. It would appear that the belief leading to the statements referred to has originated from the fact that Australian timber price lists in certain lines quote at ioo feet lineal (or running) measure, whereas the New Zealand lists (with the exception of mouldings) quote at per ioo superficial. Take as an example, Ist Class 6 x I on the foregoing rimu liststhis would be quoted in Australia at 19s. 6d. per 100 (lineal) against the Rangitikei price 2is. 6d. per 100 super). .It is quite understandable that some of our M's.P. would be sufficiently ignorant of these matters to fall into so simple an error as to take the two prices to relate to the same quantity, but there is no excuse whatever for builders or anyone connected with the trade or having a knowledge of timber measurements to make such a glaring mistake. It had actually been stated that kauri could be bought in Melbourne and shipped back to New Zealand and, after paying the freight and charges both ways, be sold in New Zealand cheaper than the New Zealand sawmillers' lists. It would be entertaining were some builder or M.P- still holding this opinion to try the experiment.