RECIPROCAL TRADE

Evening Star, Issue 21750, 19 June 1934, Page 14

RECIPROCAL TRADE

MR COATES REPLIES TO MR GQODFELLOW [P*r United Press Association.] WELLINGTON. June IS. The statement issued in Auckland by the chairman of the New Zealand Producers and United Kingdom Manufacturers’ Reciprocal Trade Federation, Mr W. Goodfellow, in reply to the statement made last week by the Minister of Finance, was referred to this evening by Air Coates. He said that one or two points in the Press statement issued by Goodfellow deserved notice, and in tiro'interests of accuracy there were some corrections to make in his allegations. .Mr Coates said that Mr Goodfellow denied that Air Albert Russell, the spokesman for his organisation, the New Zealand Producers and United Kingdom Manufacturers’ Reciprocal Trade Federation, had said that New Zealand had done nothing to comply with the Ottawa agreement. “ One can only rely in these matters on the Press reports of Air Russell’s meetings,” added Air Coates. “If Air Goodfellow will look up the extended reports as published he will see the words that i quoted. However, it is at least satisfactory to note the withdrawal.

“ Air Goodfellow' then refers to the exchange rate, and speaks loosely of tlie transfer of millions of pounds’ w'orth of goods from the manufacturers of the United Kingdom to Australia. He does not and could not substantiate the reference to ‘ millions.’ He does not notice that in the trade agreement between the Commonwealth and ourselves we expressly provided for remedial action in the event of there being an undue diversion of trade, and, most important of all. Air Goodfellow' omits to say that the New Zealand exchange rate has nothing whatever to,do with any advantage that tho Australian manufacturers may have over the United Kingdom manufacturers. Our adjustment of the exchange rate —an adjustment, I may say, for wdiich Mr Goodfellow was insistent in pressingapplied equally to Australia, Great Britain. and all other countries. “ Tho New Zealand producers and United Kingdom Manufacturers’ Reciprocal Trade Federation, by its title, performs a useful service in drawing attention to the need for reciprocity in trade and for co-operation between ourselves and the Mother Country; but it is apt to do a disservice, when professing to speak for important interests; it advocates what is, in effect, an alliance by certain New Zealand interests with certain United Kingdom interests against the farmer and against the Government of the United Kingdom. When this novel attitude of antagonism is favoured one point that should at least be made clear is just how representative is the organisation. Its name is certainly an impressive and lengthy one, but has the federation more enrolled members on its books than it has words in its name? ”