IMPORT POLICY DEBATED

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27764, 15 September 1955, Page 12

IMPORT POLICY DEBATED

MOVE FROM LICENCES TO TARIFFS

MR EYRE REPLIES TO OPPOSITION

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 14. TTie day when merchants could sell their goods before they even made had gone, said the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. J. Eyre) in the House of Representatives this afternoon. Under the Labour administration many merchants had sold imported goods from the wharf, and their warehouses were empty, he said. That was not a good thing, and much of the excessive demand had been created by starving consumers by means of nnport selection. Mr Eyre was commenting on Opposition claims that import licensing was needed to protect local manufacturers. The House was discussing written Ministerial replies to questions asked earlier by members. Mr H. Watt (Opposition. Onehunga) had asked the Minister whether he would use his influence to have the Government introduce an import selection policy as advocated by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation.

Mr Eyre replied that the policy of t the Government was to move from im- | port licensing to import tariffs, adding! that if perhaps for balance-of-pay-! ments reasons the operation of tariffs proved unsatisfactory, the Government would examine alternative methods. “All the money spent on imoorts is not for consumer goods which affect local industries,” said the Minister. He thought New Zealand manufacturers should be prepared to meet a certain amount of competition from overseas. Everyone knew that under the Labour Government’s system of import licensing, merchants “wore their breeches out” in sitting about waiting to lobby for licences from the Government, said th° Minister.

Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Island Bay) said that the Government was trying out something new to New Zealand and new to other countries, but if it was not known what would be attained the experiment came into the “quack” category. The real reason for the “credit squeeze” was to restrict imnorts. It was a cumbersome and unscientific method.

Many persons would be hurt in the application of the squeeze, continued Mr Nordmeyer. and it was inevitable that those hurt would be small businessmen and small farmers.

The Minister of Social Security (Mr E. H. Halstead) said that business had been put on a sound basis by encouraging industry to finance itself on share capital rather than on cheap money and bank overdraft. The Government had pledged itself to preserve freedom for traders and should experiment. Those who wanted a Labour government would get import control and price control.

Mr C. L. Carr (Opposition, Timaru) said that although Mr Eyre claimed to be trying a new experiment, he was pursuing the same policy as that of the Government when the depression struck 25 years ago. At that time circumstances were exactly the same as now. A drop in overseas prices had caused the Government to adopt a policy of deflation, and it had employed the credit squeeze to destroy the purchasing power of the people, said Mr Carr. PARLIAMENTARY DAY (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON. September 14. Only a technical hold-up prevented the House of Representatives this evening from voting on the second reading of the Shops and Offices Eill. A late starter in the debate was the Opposition, member for Avon (Mr J. Mathison). He took some time reviewing the law and the decisions of the Christchurch City Council relating to Saturday shopping at New Brighton. Mr Mathison’s speech was not a bright contribution to a poor debate. Interest in this bill has been lost. The Opposition has won no laurels from its part in the debate, and it is now likely to concentrate cn the Tenancy Bill. For nearly an hour this afternoon the Opposition discussed a question °L.. }ittl e moment except to those afflicted—hearing aids. Ministerial replies to other questions were neither interesting nor provocative.