IMPORT POLICY

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27911, 7 March 1956, Page 14

IMPORT POLICY

System Discussed By Retailers SPREAD OF LICENCES “ UNFAIR ” (From Our Own Reporter) HANMER SPRINGS, March 6. Except for a basic allocation of 50 per cent, of 1954 imports, no clear indication could be obtained from the Government on the licensing policy to be adopted for woollen piece-goods, the drapery and fashion trade group reported to the annual meeting of members at the New Zealand Retailers’ Federation conference. “Nor can we ascertain what kind of additional business the woollen mills are seeking.’’ said the report, which criticised the Government’s decision to bring woollen piece goods back under import licensing towards the end of 1C55 as “one of the most unsatisfactory decisions on imports affecting this group for many years.” Quite a number of decisions had not met with the approval of retailers. Licences for women’s and girls’ outerwear of woven fabrics were cut oy one-fifth for 1956. Although a part of the cut was reduced by a separate allocation for blouses, the net result was still what the group considered an unwarranted reduction in the so recently restored imports of that clothWomen’s knitted outerwear of wool was also similarly subject to a reduction for 1956 licences of one-fifth, and it could be assumed that if the federation had not made very strong representations the manufacturers’ request for much more substantial reduction might have been granted. Some consolation was derived from the granting of extra licences for knitwear above a certain price. The group’s request for a tariff inquiry into knitwear was declined. In May a major inquiry would be held relating to woollen goods and allied items, and the federation was preparing a case. The furniture and furnishings trade group reported that it was fortunate in that import licensing did not apply to most of its goods from soft currency sources. With the removal of exchange control from the beginning of 1955. those interested in importing were able to add to the already considerable variety of furniture and furnishings available to consumers throughout New Zealand. Furniture imports were relatively small, and the rather considerable drain of overseas exchange reserves during 1955 would not have been contributed to substantially by furniture importers. The New Zealand Textile and Garment Manufacturers’ Council had asked for a joint co,mmittee on import policy matters, but the council of the federation did not consider that that was practicable. The chairman of the group, Mr J. W. Wood (Invercargill) reported that he believed that at least one of those “get-togethers” with their suppliers each year would be of advantage to the trade. “It is apparent that some exceptional difficulty is preventing th? Government from making up its mind on crockery.” reported the household hardware and crockery trade group. It urged that the Minister be asked to give an indication when importers of crockery were to be informed of future policy for that important commodity. / Board of Trade Hearings A Wellington remit was that the Government be urged to affirm and maintain its past policy of giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard before the Board of Trade before all important decisions were made on individual licensing items or on protection for individual industries. Mr D. A. Smith (Wellington) said manufacturers and wholesalers were consulted about wopllen piece goods, but the decision came out of the blue to the retailers, who had always supported the Board of Trade. A decision should come from the board, and not from the Minister or out of the blue. Mr W. P. Wellington (Otago) said the same trouble had been experienced over footwear. All groups supported the remit. Moving a Wellington remit that the Government be urged to take effective steps to speed un greatly the announcement of tariff inquiry decisions, Mr H. L. Bennett (Wellington) said the remit was becoming a hardy annual. Some of the deliberations were ex-

tremely long, and a crockery decision ' had not been given after three years and three months. “It is possible to waken the sleep-; ing, but it is a herculean task to in-i duce efficiency into some Government' departments.” said Mr Smith. The l case of the delay in the crockery de- 1 cision was added to the remit. A Wellington remit adopted was that i representations be made to the Board of. Trade to have the points system for; issuing import licences revised so asi to remove anomalies, and give a morei satisfactory share of licences to retailers. The retail trade felt that it had not been granted sufficient licences under ; the points system, said Mr A. L. ’ George. Some wholesalers received j licences which could be better used by retailers. Mr F. Clapshaw (Auckland), who seconded, said that when the points system was introduced it was a question of trial and error, and the time had come for adjustment. Mr J. M. Blackgrove (Oamaru) said the possibility was that the smaller retailer dependent on warehouses would get smaller supplies. Mr W. F. F. Ward (Auckland) said most of the retailers with under £20.000 turnover were dependent on warehouses. They might not be using their licences to the fullest extent, or might be selling them. A check should be kept. Mr Blackgrove said it was proposed that .licences for men’s and boys’ wear should be based on turnover. The big importers would then have the goods to distribute to their retail clients. The small retailer would not be cut out by the proposal in the remit, which would mean that licences would be fully used and the public served. Share of Licences “It seems we are going to have import licensing back on our shoulders,’’ said Mr Blackgrove. “The small retailers should be given their share. The spread of licences throughout New Zealand is most unfair at the moment. We are not getting a fair share.” Mr L. R. Adams-Schmeider (Taumarunui) said the small retailers were conscious that they had to buy from warehouses. The conference should make sure that the small retailers would not be penalised. Mr J. R. Living (Wellington) said if the small man did not wish to use the licence he could hand it to a wholesaler, and thus ensure his share. At present large portions of the licences went into the city stores, not the country stores. The remit was carried. The federation decided by an Otago remit to sponsor a meeting of the New Zealand Woollen Mill Owners’ Association, the New Zealand Garment Makers’ Association, and the Wholesale Softgoods Association to discuss the serious implications of the Minister’s recent decision over the licensing of woollen piecegoods. Mr R. D. Gilchrist (Otago) said there was probably a desire now by the millowners for a change from their hasty action. A meeting before the coming Board of Trade hearing would not be harmful.

This trade has grown and there is no reason why the trade should be in the hands of six importers,” said Mr G. Barnett (Otago), proposing that representations be made to the Board of Trade requesting a re-examination of import licences for Christmas Cards. The remit was adopted. The Minister of Customs will be advised of the federation’s great dissatisfaction with the allocation of import licences for adult footwear, whereby specialist stores with no recognised past importing history were denied licences.

Moving the remit Mr A. Hawkev (Auckland) said that apart from a very few token licences for a special matron type of shoes, no licences had been granted for adult footwear. The only licences were for children's footwear. The result was that stores specialising in adult fontwear could not qualify because in 1953. 1954. and 19.3.1 imports were not allowed It was also unfair to the buying public which would expect to buy from the specialist stores. Information was that the anomaly was recognised, and would be rectified in part. Of that they could not be sure. The question had a'so arisen as to what was a speciality store. L