NEW ZEALAND TARIFF

Northern Advocate, 5 November 1932, Page 9

NEW ZEALAND TARIFF

■REVISION UNDERTAKING. PRIME MINISTER 'S PROMISE. SMALL BOARD SUGGESTED. (From Our Parliamentary Special.) WELLINGTON, Friday. An indication that a commission ■svoiild probably be set up early next year to undertake revision of the tariff,’was promised in the agreement made between New Zealand and Britain at Ottawa, was given by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes, to a deputation which waited on him. Air Forbes gave an assurance that the utmost endeavour would be made to secure men whose verdicts would be accepted nationally. The deputation represented the Net" Zealand Importers' Federation, the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation and the New Zealand Farmers’ Union.

Mr Edwin Salmond said that although the views of the three organisations on the question of tariff were widely divergent, they realised that the agreement made at Ottawa practically defined the Dominion's tariff policy for the next few years.

The Government had stated that the tariff would be carefully revised and brought into lino with the agreement, and the deputation suggested that for that purpose a temporary tariff board should be established. They regarded such a board as entirely necessary, and were particularly concerned over its personnel, .the date on which it would begin to take evidence, and the date on which the new tariff would come into operation.

Mr Salmond said the board should be composed of men qualified in every respect for the job. “We have reached the following- conclusions/’ he added: —“(1) That business men are ineligible, as it would be impossible to secure the services of New Zealand business men free from bias; (2) that the board should not consist entirely of civil servants; (3) that a judge of the Supreme Court should be chairman, and that a qualified public accountant should be the second member of the board. You have already stated that a prominent public servant wall be a member of whatever body is set up.”

The Prime Minister said ho had made no definite statement on that point.

Mr Salmond said that in the opinion of his organisation a, board of three members should be large enough. He hoped that the board would not begin to take ■ evidence before next April, since there was a. mass of evidence to be collected by different associations and unions, and they took it that the new tariff would not bo presented to Parliament before next June.

Interlude Desired. They requested that a clause should be embodied in the Tariff Bill providing for a lag of three months from the date when the'bill was brought down to the date on which the now duties became operative. If that provision was not made, there would bo a grave dislocation of business, and merchants would incur heavy losses. Primary producers, who were most anxious to see lower tariffs in operation, agreed that such a provision would be fair and equitable. Mr Forbes: 1 { lf we announced that the duty was coming off, would not the effect be that every buyer would cease buying, and the whole business would bo held up?"

Mr Salmond said there would be no such effect. Mr It. H. Foist said that the Farmers ’ Union proposed a body of dive members, including a Government appointee as chairman, a representative of the British Government, and representatives of exporting, importing and manufacturing interests. They agreed to the proposal for a three months’ lag, and wore emphatically of the opinion that an inquiry of the kind should be conducted in public. Mr Forbes: "We should have to go into the question how far confidential information would be required." Mr Feist: "We appreciate that, but we feel that will be only an infinitesimal part of the evidence given. A great deal could bo taken in public." The Prime Minister, in reply, said that, as he understood it, Britain was not asking to have representation on the board or committee, but. simply for the right to give evidence. He. was afraid that if representation on the board was to cover all interests, it would be wide indeed. He considered it more important to have tho right men rather than to have them representing any special interests. They would try to got as impartial a commission. ns possible to .judge entirely on the merits of each case. Tho matter would bo considered early in the New Year.