IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 110, 12 May 1939, Page 8

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —A few days ago a deputation representing the retail trade interviewed the Prime Minister. Some of the members of the deputation made very sweeping statements regarding the effect of the import restrictions. The boot trade was particularly mentioned. I have before me the import figures for the first three months of this year, and they do not suggest that there should be any shortage of boots and shoes at the present time.

Imports of children's footwear from the United Kingdom show an increase of 20,000 pairs over the same period for last year. Imports from Canada show an increase of 4000 pairs for the same period. There are decreases in the imports from Australia and Japan, but the figures for all countries show an increase of roughly 14,000 pairs for the three-monthly period. In ordinary leather footwear, while, almost all countries show a decrease in the number of pairs, the value of the total imports shows a reduction of only £500. The figures for slippers show an increase from the United Kingdom of about 8000 pairs, while the value, from all countries, shows an increase of £1800. These figures, together with the increasing output of the New Zealand factories, surely indicate that no retailer at the present time or in the near future should be short of supplies. *

Importers are loud in their, condemnation of the Government for decreasing their business. But if we take the figures for the past four years, imports of children's footwear, for the three months January to March, 1936----39, inclusive, from i»e United Kingdom show an increase of over 300 per cent. Imports of leather footwear (not children's) show an., ii>:rease from the United Kingdom of about 9000 pairs. Imports of slippers from the same source also show an increase of over 300 per cent., while imports of canvas footwear from all countries have almost doubled. Is it not time the importers put in a word of praise to the Government for giving them the opportunity to double their business in four years?

One aspect of the general situation seems to have escaped notice. The fall in sterling exchange is generally regarded as a calamity. Yet a balance in London of some 25 to 30 million pounds can surely only mean one thing: that we have exported produce to that value and received no goods in return. Making some allowance for the flight of capital affecting the sterling balance, much of the reduction of sterling exchange has nevertheless been the result of New Zealand getting from the other side of the world goods in return for the values she has exported. And why not? —I am, etc.,

COMMON SENSE ABOUT IMPORTS.