THE RESOLUTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 91, 14 October 1932, Page 5

THE RESOLUTIONS

ADOPTED BY HOUSE

ASSESSING THE RESULTS

LABOUR CRITICAL

The formal resolutions giving effect to the Ottawa agreement were adopted by the House of Bepresentatives la.st evening after a discussion lasting for four hours.

Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he thought that New Zealand had "got down pretty lightly." Britain had placed no limit on the goods from New Zealand in the past, but New Zealand had been able to supply. Britain only with one-third of her, requirements. There was no guarantee in the agree- . ment that' there would ,;bo increased ipriees" for the primary producers of New' Zealand. ; Priees would be regulated by the purchasing power1 of the people, aiid the position would be the same as though there had been no Ottawa Conference. For the first time in history there was a restriction on the amount of meat New Zealand sent to the Old Country, and if production was to be increased the surplus would have to find a market elsewhere than in Britain. There was an absolute certainty that manufacturers would tie at a disadvantage, but not to the extent he had anticipated. He ventured to say that manufacturers of confectionery were not making a profit of 2J per cent., and the result of the new tariff' might mak"e all the difference between keeping the factories open and closing them. He was afraid that still lower wages would be sought, and unemployment would increase. In the case of ap--parcl, there was a reduction of 5 per cent., and he was afraid that it would mean that."shoddy" from some other part of the world would be sold in New Zealand in preference to the Dominion's woollen goods. New Zealand lad no cause for complaint regarding Britain's treatment in thepast. He contended that the secondary industries of New Zealand should receive better treatment. He did not agree with what had been done at Ottawa, though it ■was not so bad as he had anticipated. ■If Britain needed "preferences, he snggested that they. should'be given on those goods which New Zealand was not in a position to produce. They could be admitted duty free. Wool prices were falling, due to the increased use of silk, and now the door was to be opened to silk' That would not be to the advantage of the people generally. ;It would be impossible for New, Zealand wages and standard of living to be higher than Britain's if manufacturers in the Old Country were placed in a position enabling them to compete on equal terms with New Zealand. The agreement at Ottawa had not placed this country- on a better footing than it had occupied in the past. FARMERS' VIEWPOINT. Mr. W. J. Poison , (Government, Stratford) said that Mr. Coatea and the other delegates were ' entitled to the thanks of the primary producers of .New Zealand. Britain had become the dumping ground of the world, and it was realised that New Zealand's market was in grave danger. Foreign competition from cheap labour was having a bad effect. The pendulum was now swinging the right way, and one could look with some hope to the ■future. He was not seeking- to drive the worker down to the coolie level, but he wanted to see the best class of wages paid that could be paid economically. The meat quota would enable New Zealand to supplant South American meat gradually. The Farmers' Union was one of the first organisations to favour the quota system. Mr. Poison, said he wanted to see sound arid sane industries continue. A superstructure of secondary industries could ■be built only on a sound basis of primary industries. The agreement was not all the farmers were asking for, but it was on the right lines. NO TRICE GUARANTEE. Mr. "W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said that if Mr. Poison had his way, New Zealand would just be a gigantic cowyard. The agreement at Ottawa gave no guarantee for the price of primary produce. Would New Zealand receive English goods in return for the tariff concessions, or would they be Indian goods produced-by sweated labour? It would be fatal if anything were done to mar the secondary industries, • which should be encouraged at the present time. Wool competition was so serious that the country had to consider whether it was economic to produce wool, or whether the land should be devoted to other purposes. It seemed one-sided, that the British Cabinet should have a say in the development of secondary industries in I New Zealand while this country did not i

have a similar right in respect of primary industries in the Ola Country. The Minister of Public Works (the Bight Hon. J. G. Coates): Bead article 9. There was not a single proposal in the agreement to increase the incomes of English consumers, said Mr. Parry. NEW MAKKETS. Mr. A. Harris (Government, Waitemata) said the peoplo of New Zealand would look to the Otawa results to assist New Zealand back to normality. There was more than a 2J per cent,, reduction in confectionery, as there the surtax was to be abolished. Diminution of trade was the great trouble to-day, and he was not sure that the Ottawa proposals would rectify this.' It was necessary for New Zealand to increase trade, and she must not shut her door on possible customers. Mr. Harris said that the duties should be fixed on parity of exchange instead of bank exchange, as the present system was working unfairly because of the different exchange standards. A PEEVIOUS BILL. Mr. Coates, replying to a statement made by Mr. McCombs, to the effect that the Prime Minister in 1930 had stated that the surtax had been imposed for both protective and revenue purposes, said that Mr. Forbes was then discussing a Customs Bill with a list of Customs alterations. He was not referring specifically to the surtax, but to the alteration of the duties in general. Mr. MeCombs said that the Customs Bill referred to had included excise duties which could not be called protective. The only item that could be called protective was the surtax. 1 Mr. J. McCombs w(Labour, Lyttelton) said that an attempt was being made to show that New Zealand was not giving away very much, but it had to be remembered that in addition to the adjustment of duties the Government was lifting the surtax. There was a provision that the English manufacturer "should be placed, on the basis of a do : mestie competitor, which meant that further concessions might liave to be given. This arrangement also meant that the New Zealand -manufacturer would receive only half the business. A factory in Canterbury, which imported artificial silk thread and made it ifcto piece goods, would have to go out of business, and the concession on silk meant that the New Zealand market would be flooded to.the detriment of the local woollen mills. There was no doubt that the secondary industries had been ruthlessly sacrificed, and the shrewd negotiators from Great Britain had "put it all over" the New Zealand representatives. ■ . . Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea) said that he would like to see American goods shut out of New Zealand and the whole of the trade given to Britain. The balance of trade with the United States was heavily against the Dominion, and in addition America was refusing to buy New Zealand products. The quota placed on New Zealand meat would not affect the Domin; ion's position, as it had been fixed on last year's record export, which would not be equalled for a number of years. He Was sorry to'see that the duties-had not been lowered on crockery and pigiron. MB, COATES IN EEPLY. y Eeplying to the debate, Mr. Coates said it would 'be all very well if New Zealand protected industries which could, be carried on economically, but the Labour Party in Australia had not confined itself to economical industries. The surtax had been for revenuq purr poses. . Mr. McCombs' showed. Mr. Coates a statement made by Mr. Forbes that the tax was for the purpose of protecting the primary industries. "I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister meant that," said Mr. Coates, amidst laughter.. It was: said the importer of raw materials would have to pay the surtax, N but it could-not be overlooked that the importer had the benefit of the exchange. • : Mr. Forbes said that the duty on silk had been levied for revenue purposes, and it was to have come off on Ist April, 1933. The silk manufacturer had no right to regard the duty as permanent. ' The resolutions were agreed to.