REVISION OF THE TARIFF.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20203, 13 March 1929, Page 10

REVISION OF THE TARIFF.

The case for more rigorous examination of claims for protection under the customs tariff has certainly not been weakened by the objections to the'proposal of a tariff /'board that have been made by the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. It agrees with the Auckland Chamber's dislike of the principle of a permanent tariff board, but recommends a permanent tariff advisory committee. The distinction is not apparent. The essential point is that some tribunal is necessary to investigate claims for amendments of the tariff, since it is manifestly impossible for Parliament to undertake the task and equally unsatisfactory that action should be guided only by representations to the Minister of Customs. From the public point of view, the vital issue is whether that tribunal, whatever its constitution, is to hear claims in public or to take evidence behind closed doors, so that nothing is known of the representations made to it or of its conclusions until the customs bill is published. Even then, there need not necessarily be full explanation of the reasons for proposed alterations in duty, as it is entirely a matter for the tribunal's discretion whether any reports are made. The Canterbury Chamber fears that publicity would be a deterrent to that "sufficient candour" necessary to enable the investigating tribunal to deal properly with "each individual case." It is a familiar objection, but it cannot be accepted. Tariff revision cannot be considered in relation to "individual cases." If a protective duty is justified at all, it must be based upon a survey of an industry, not upon consideration for a particular manufacturer. The Contrary argument would be a contradiction of the whole doctrine of private enterprise and open competition, which recognises that efficiency is the only means of preservation. The contention that an industry appealing for tariff protection would shrink from the ordeal of publicity is ridiculous It would be unable to make a candid statement of its case only if its claims were too absurd to bear public exposition. If there were any justice in the insistence on secret proceedings, a much stronger case againßt publicity could be made on behalf of litigants in the civil Courts, where so often only the interests of individuals are concerned. There would be a clearer view on this important subject and sounder pronouncements by chambers of commerce if they would realise that questions of tariff revision cannot be decided merely by negotiations between claimants for protection and the Government and Parliament. The general public is intimately concerned, and it is entitled to demand that any industry seeking tariff assistance shall be required to prove in public that it is prejudicially affected by substantial foreign competition and that it has a legitimate case that will bear full investigation. Industries that are repelled by this proposition cannot complain if their grievances are regarded with indifference.