Control Of Imports By Duties Not Favoured

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31120, 25 July 1966, Page 8

Control Of Imports By Duties Not Favoured

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 24. An Auckland remit calling for the Government to re-examine its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with a view to replacing quantitative import licensing with control by import duties was rejected by the committee concerned with trade and industry at the National Party conference.

Mr K. Lynch (New Lynn) argued that New Zealand should not surrender the right to control imports according to its needs and that higher tariffs would replace admitted frustration by hardship. The Minister of Customs

(Mr Shelton) virtually settled the argument when he said: “Under G.A.T.T. we have to prove our right to impose restrictions every year and if we were taking any wrong action we would be on the mat.

“We have spent too much on imports this year. We must somehow reduce our reliance on imports. On the items we have freed from import control another £3O million has

been spent. We would have to justify the raising of tariffs in G.A.T.T. also.” Woollen Piece Goods Speakers were well briefed on a remit jointly sponsored by three divisions of the party and favouring the removal or easing of import restrictions on woollen piece goods to promote the use of wool. The argument between the local woollen mills and the growers and promoters of wool is now awaiting judgment by the Tariff and Development Board and a recommendation by the board to the Government. The full conference will have the almost unanimous recommendation of the committee to adopt the remit. The committee almost unanimously agreed to recommend Government consideration of measures to decentralise industry. The committee overwhelmingly rejected a Petone remit seeking an increase in financial assistance for skilled immigrants. Australian Trade

The committee favoured Government investigation of a further trade agreement with Australia to provide “for certain allied industries to be operated on a complementary base.” It rejected by 41 votes to 19 the "rationalisation” of annual holidays to avoid the shut-down of business at Christmas and to defer summer school holidays for a month. It narrowly defeated a proposal to introduce a scheme for the tax-free distribution of company shares to employees. The committee almost unanimously rejected a remit favouring a universal price for petrol, thus abandoning a cause that has found support at the last three National Party conferences. The farming committee unanimously favoured a more extensive fertiliser subsidy, more financial aid for young farm owners through the State Advances Corporation, the abolition of the 40-mile restriction on road transport, the removal of restrictions on the purchase of farm land as recommended by the Agricultural Development Conference, and the mandatory killing of stock on hand at a freezing works before a strike proceeds. Tax Concessions Although the 80 members of the committee included 70 farmers, they almost unanimously rejected a plan for special tax concessions for farmers because of the alleged disparity between farmers’ net incomes and those of other self-employed persons with similar capital investment. The committee found that correct comparisons of capital in industry and in farming could not be made. The taxation committee rejected a remit calling for "indicative economic planning” following the example of the Agricultural Production Council. It voted out a proposal for tax exemptions on any increases in net profit resulting from increased primary production.

It recommended, however, that the Government’s taxation review should give special attention to tax incentives to increase “essential” production and production for export. The CanterburyWestland division (Rangiora) withdrew its remit seeking delay in imposing a penalty on town milk supply failing to attain the minimum solids-not-fat content in milk.

Assured by the Minister of Finance (Mr Lake) that the Government was already considering the proposal, the taxation committee supported a remit seeking to ensure that withdrawals from the farm income equalisation scheme would not incur higher rates of taxation because of higher

income in the year of withdrawal. Further reductions in the rates of death duty, as proposed by the CanterburyWestland division, were unanimously supported on the ground that increases in values had cancelled the benefits of previous reductions.

The committee urged a level of £5OOO estate duty exemption for each child, immediate abolition of the land tax, and the raising, in progressive stages, of the present £3600 at which the maximum tax rate applies, but it rejected proposals for a shift towards more indirect taxation on the ground that it affected wages, pensioners, and prices. Care for Aged

Social security, housing and electoral remits were discussed by the fourth committee of the conference. It unanimously approved a Canterbury proposal for more geriatric beds in institutions, and especially “homes for the aged with infirm wings.” It adopted a remit seeking the raising of allowable earnings by age beneficiaries from £4 to £5 a week, and the use of mobile radio equipment by doctors, especially in rural areas. It supported a Canterbury call for improved legislation on freehold titles of flats.