TARIFF POLICY

Southland Times, Issue 21855, 4 November 1932, Page 8

TARIFF POLICY

REVISION OF DUTY APPOINTMENT OF BOARD SUGGESTED DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, November 3. The appointment of a temporary Tariff Board presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court to make the tariff investigations promised by the Government was advocated by a deputation representing the New Zealand Importers’ Federation, the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation and the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, which waited upon the Prime Minister this afternoon. The Prime Minister replied that the object of the Government would be to get as impartial a tribunal as possible. Mr Edwin Salmond, president of the Importers’ Federation, said that although the views of the three organizations on the question of tariff were widely divergent, they realized 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. The deputation suggested that for this purpose a temporary Tariff Board should be established. Mr Salmond said that businessmen were ineligible as it was impossible to secure the services of one free of bias. The importers suggested the board should have a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman and that a qualified public accountant and civil servant be included. Mr R. H. Feist, on behalf of the Farmers’ Union, said the Farmers’ Union was anxious to see an investigation carried out thoroughly and at the earliest opportunity on the constitution of the Tariff Board. They were not of quite the same mind as the other organizations and _ accordingly they proposed a body of five members, including a Government appointee as chairman, a representative of the Imperial Government and representatives of the exporting, importing and manufacturing interests. The Prime Minister said he thought the inquiry should be public. 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. “I think it is more important to have the men than to have them representing any special interests,” said Mr Forbes. “The matter however will not come under consideration until after the session, early in the New Year. Whatever we do we shall try to get an impartial commission to judge entirely on the merits of each case.”