The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1950. Board of Trade

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26031, 7 February 1950, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1950. Board of Trade

By its emphasis on over-spending of external funds, attenuated sterling balances and Government calls on overseas funds for capital goods for development, the Prime Minister’s recent statement on the financial position of the nation confirmed what the National Party has never disguised—before the General Election or after it—that there can be no question of the early lifting of import controls. Therefore, it is the more important as a matter of practical polities that there should be an overhaul of the existing system of import controls, which, in its growth and spread, has suffered from extemporising, revising, uncoordinated departmental operations, and some haphazardness. The National Party is committed to such an overhaul by terms of its election manifesto. But the continuing, probably greater, need for import control does not justify precipitate or rash movement, by which the unsatisfactory could be made worse, nor moving until the whole subject of import control h’as been given the broadest examination and most careful thought. A useful contribution to thought about it, and one which affirms the need for still more thought, is provided in draft proposals for the establishment of a board of trade, prepared as a basis for discussion for the Associated Chambers of Commerce by Professor A. H. Tocker. A summary of the draft was 'printed in “The “ Press ” on Saturday. Professor Tocker’s proposals are addressed to the establishment of a board of trade presumably because what is termed a board of trade is favoured by the National Party as the instrument to overhaul the import control system and to perform tariff advisory and other functions that are mentioned in the party’s election manifesto. But Professor Tocker’s proposals are clearly inhibited because it is not by any means plain what the Government means by a board of trade. The terms of the National Party manifesto certainly exclude establishing a board of trade with similar functions and duties to that of the British Government department of the same name, a department that is headed by a Cabinet Minister. Professor Tocker recognises that until the Government has made up its mind, investigators and advisers can do no better than to conjecture within the boundaries of probabilities. He says that “ the precise “ functions of a board of trade “ would depend largely upon aspects “ of Government policy He sees that the functions of a board of trade might be relatively narrow or relatively broad within the “wide “field of investigation and reform” that the Government has to cover. Thus, it is inside a range of probabilities and with no defined lines within which to work that Professor Tocker discusses the proposed board of trade. Even so, it is somewhat surprising to notice his thoughts running outside the lines of. the National Party manifesto. The National Party’s 1946 General Election manifesto appeared to propose executive, as distinct from advisory, powers for the proposed board. Among other functions it was to have the task of allocating, in conjunction with the Reserve Bank, “the country’s overseas purchasing “power”. In the three years between the elections, the National Party evidently gave thought to its board of trade proposals; and in the party’s 1949 manifesto the board of trade appeared as “ an advisory “authority to the Government”. However, Professor Tocker appears to turn back to the 1946 manifesto, to executive powers for the board of trade, when he suggests that its functions might include “ decisions “on matters of interpretation, and “the administration of import con“trol as long as it remained necessary”. This may express belief that only if it possessed executive powers could the board of trade effectively do what it is suggested that it might do. But it would mean also establishing a new department, which would take over or cut into the work of several existjpg departments and of the Reserve Bank. This would be a highly speculative remedy. It might be a remedy worse than the disease it proposed to cure. There is no question that the impdrt control system needs to be overhauled, eased, and rationalised: no question that Professor Tocker correctly defines the major issue involved as being “to limit trade control to the “ essential minimum, and to ensure “ that the minimum is administered “ in matters of detail by people who “are best fitted, by knowledge and “ experience, to do it effectively ”. But it does seem that an unnecessarily devious approach is being made to the heart of the problem, which is to improve the import control system.