Evening Post THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1939. CONTRADICTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 23, 27 July 1939, Page 8

Evening Post THURSDAY, JULY 27, 1939. CONTRADICTIONS

The Minister of Industries arid Homnierca endeavoured last night to jxtrieate the Government from the difficult position into which it has put itself by its adoption, first, of a wholehearted "insulation" policy, and then its modification of that policy in the assurances given by Mr. Nasli on the granting by Britain of export credits. The effort was not successful. Not only arc there contradictions in the spirit of the statements made by Ministers here and the assurances given by Mr. Nash in England, but Ministers contradict themselves. For example, Mr. Sullivan, was asked last night: "Are the restrictions permanent or temporary?" He replied: The Government has not committed itself, but it has committed itself definitely to sustaining New Zealand industries, whether it is by means of restrictions or whether by some other means. Yet previously Mr. Sullivan said: If manufacturers extended their factories and expanded their industries, they could do so in the certainty that the Government was not going to change its mind in the policy it had adopted. It was a permanent policy, and not one merely adopted to tide over the present situation. Mr. Sullivan then had no doubt of the permanence of the policy, buJ when now asked if the restrictions are permanent or tempoi-ary he says, "The Government has not committed itself." ■ The Minister cannot evade the issue by saying that the Governmenl has not committed itself to imporl restriction, but has committed itseli to sustaining New Zealand industries by some other means. He spoke pre viously of the policy the Government had adopted, and that policy was unquestionably "insulation" by mean; of import restrictions, or, euphemis tically, "import selection." Further if the Government claims that it unqualified promise of permanen protection to the manufacturers is no necessarily a promise of protectioi in the],form subsisting when th promise was made, it cannot escap a commitment to protection o equivalent efficacy. That is to saj if it proposes to substitute a tarii for the restrictions, the manufacturer may justifiably claim that the.tarii | should be equal to an embargo—tha it should shut out 50 per cent, or 10' per cent, of imports as the restric tions for the second period do i: many cases. But this would not b keeping the spirit of Mr, Nash' assurance to Great Britain that it was not the intention of the Ne> Zealand Government to employ th import licensing policy in order t give protection to New Zealand indus tries against the import of Unite Kingdom goods on a scale which pr« vented full opportunity for reasonabl competition. Even when qualified by the follov ing explanation that "difficultie arose where the New Zealand Govern \ ment had already incurred oblige tions," this assurance obviously doe not contemplate a mere switch-ovt from the restriction embargo to tariff embargo. The contradiction between Mi Nash's assurances given in Englan* and the promises and statements o his colleagues in New Zealand i made clearer still by reference to M; Nash's letter to an English manufa( turer. "As soon as we are in position to do so," Mr. Nash wrot< | " — the present restrictions operat until the end of 1939—imports wi: - be resumed to the,full extent of ov ability. We have no wish to pursu a policy of isolation or sel sufficiency." Also, in his discussio )r with the British Government, M ie Nash undertook that "as circun a stances permit, the New Zealan Government would do their utmoi tp by relaxation of restrictions t le ensure maximum expansion of trac n between the United Kingdom an se New Zealand, consistent with tr maintenance of sound economic coi to ditions in New Zealand and tr n- Government's obligations to existir industries." What are the Goven £*■ ment's <e obligations to existing indu re- tries" and how do they affect the "fu ID opportunity for reasonable compel , fr tion" (qualified by "already incurrc of obligations") promised to Britain br It is time for the Government 1 come down to specific cases an er terms, and to sa.y what is to be tl its future policy: abandonment < ' restrictions, substitution of a be embargo tariff for restrictions, < ;he simple reversion to the old orde Whatever the policy is to be tl >j e . Government will find it hard ' square with contradictory promise and interpretations. The Government cannot go blithe ahead ia the belief that Unit

Kingdom opinion does not matter, j Mr. Sullivan contended last night that the restrictions had nothing to do with quotas or restrictions on British imports of primary produce. That may be so with respect to the past, hut it .will not be so in the future. The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. R. S. Hudson) made that as plain as wOrds could make it. He publicly warned the Dominion "that any curtailment of United Kingdom exports on its part would reduce Britain's capacity and willingness to go on buying and impair England's economic strength at a time when it was vital that it should be maintained in order to defend the Empire.*' If Mr. Sullivan i believes, in view of this warning, that Britain will not take notice of a policy detrimental to United Kingdom trade, he is counting upon a greater complacency or indulgence than New Zealand has any ground for anticipating.