The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1938. The Tariff Changes

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22345, 8 March 1938, Page 12

The Press TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1938. The Tariff Changes

The request of the Leader of the Opposition for an opportunity to discuss the recent tariff changes is so reasonable—and was so mildly put forward—that the Prime Minister's reply is a bewildering one. There was nothing to resist and nothing to resent; but Mr Savage spoke as if the suggestion were both frivolous and offensive. The tariff changes have been brought into effect by an unusual procedure, which does not automatically give occasion for debate, as change by means of customs resolutions would; but there are several very strong reasons why they should be debated, and without delay. First, the tariff changes represent a new development in trade relations with Great Britain and with two other Dominions, to say nothing about foreign countries. The country is entitled to learn from the Minister for Customs what representations were made to, and by, the other Imperial Governments. Second, the changes arise from the Government's obligation to protect Dominion manufacturers, who were able to argue with some force that their competitive position in the home market was being weakened under the administration of a party pledged to their support. The amended tariff therefore plainly raises issues too important to be passed by without discussion. The effects of the Government's own measures on the industrial cost structure, the nature of its policy to develop manufacturing, the particular effects to be expected from the present changes, and the possibility of alternative and perhaps better measures are four such issues; and if they were fairly and fully discussed the country would be enabled to hear, for the first time, the statistical evidence upon which the Government reached its decision. Those, roughly, are the grounds for Mr Hamilton's request. They are very clear. The grounds upon which Mr Savage said, in a flutter, that he "could not " see " how it was to be done, that he " had no " objection," and that it would be " all right " if it were possible—anything rather than a plain, prompt " Yes "—are no grounds at all. It would be "flogging a dead horse," because "the job "is done." If Mr Savage means that a debate could not affect decisions and action already taken, that is true but not to the point. If he means that it is useless to debate the economic causes and consequences involved, that is unfortunate nonsense. The House was not taken into the Government's confidence before the matter was decided; but the right of the House to obtain information and express opinions is strengthened on that account, not diminished. For a second excuse, Mr Savage said that he was " not asking 80 men to stay here and talk " about this settled affair. This is very pretty solicitude for Parliamentarians, weary after a week's work and soon, perhaps, to be driven to talk about Alsatian dogs for want of a better topic. But 20 of these men are asking for the chance, and the 20 are upholding, on a necessary occasion, the rights of the Opposition and the responsibility of the House. Mr Savage must take care that his anxiety to avoid flogging dead horses does not lead him into treating the members of Parliament and the electors like live donkeys.