INCONSISTENT IMPORT LICENSING

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 51, 1 March 1941, Page 8

INCONSISTENT IMPORT LICENSING

(To the Editor.) Sir—ln referring to "sacrifices for the war effort" relating to import restrictions, and more particularly to curtailment of New Zealand demands, Mr. Nash's statement is rather inconsistent with actual facts. New Zealand importers are fully aware that the British Government for a very considerable time has quite seriotisly restricted the sale of various goods in the United Kingdom; but has encouraged the exportation of the self-same goods, firstly to foreign countries, and then to whatever market is available. It is admitted that certain goods are totally prohibited both for home consumption and for export. These are goods which absorb large quantities of war material, and it is common sense that such goods and material should be so conserved; but there are other goods not neGessarily essential articles which British manufacturers are most anxious to export, particularly where their works and employees cannot be switched On to armament or other necessary war production. Here in-New Zealand we find unequal sacrifices being made and severe restrictions being imposed on some of the self-same goods which the United Kingdom manufacturers are so keen to export. For instance, fancy jewellery of every description is totally prohibited from entry into New Zealand, and in consequence we find the retail jewellers suffering severely. But here is where the inconsistency arises. Mr. Nash admits that he grants licences for the importation of this class of merchandise to the manufacturers for "manufacturers' purposes." As recently as February 10, 1941, he states: "Licences for the importation of imitation jewellery for retail sale cannot be granted. Consideration will be given, however, to applications from you for licences to import goods required for use by manufacturers, provided such applications are supported by firm orders from manufacturers."

Now, Sir, if fancy jewellery is considered by Mr. Nash to be a luxury, and it was helpful to Britain to totally prohibit its importation into New Zealand through the regular channels by wholesale jewellers, how comes it that he permits the self-same imitation jewellery to be imported by manufacturers of wearing apparel, under the cloak of "that such goods shall be used for manufacturing purposes"? If it is a luxury and importation is prohibited to the jewellers, then obviously it must still be a luxury even if imported by dress manufacturers, and should, therefore, be entirely prohibited from importation to all concerned.

I have received further copy invoices dated at Birmingham, October, 1940, showing that one firm has imported over 372 dozen of our latest fancy brooches, under the licence granted for "ornaments for frock manufacture." This is in addition to over 700 dozen brooches previously imported by softgoods importers and manufacturers. The non-granting of licences to the-legitimate jewellery importer who imported in 1938, and the granting of such licences to dress manufacturers for-the self-same fancy jewellery is entirely inconsistent with British fair play, and if applied to all