TRADE PACT WITH GERMANY

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 12, 7 October 1937, Page 3

TRADE PACT WITH GERMANY

Is it Any Advantage to Dominion? OPPOSITION DOUBTS (By Teleeraph— Presi Agsoci&tion.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. 1 The House this afternoon proceeded with the aecond reading of the .Trade Agreement (New Zealand and Gernxany) Ratification Bill, in moving which the Minister of ' Finance (Hon. Walter Nash) explained that the Bill contained provision for anti-dumping duties and also for the reconciliation of trade between the two countries. Hon. A. Hamilton asked where reference was contained in the Bill to Ger* many's pnrchase of 25 per cent. of butter. Mr Nash: It is iu & letter from the. German Government. It is not publisfxed because the publication of certain matters in it might cause some slighfc embarrassment to the German Government. The Minister eontinued that in Ms opinion the agreement could not do other than extend the trade of both parties. It would not be disadvantageous to the TJnited Kingdom and it would also tend to promote better tslations between the Dominion axxd Germany. He held that the closer nations got together by trade relations or otherwise the -further away would be the danger of war. Mr Hamilton pointed out that Mr Nash had not said tbe agreement would have no ill effect on British manufacturers or British exporters. The agreement, he said, would not tend to extend trade, and international agreements of an exclusive type— such as the present one — very oftreh led to complications. Often they had been the causes of disputes and war. Personally, he said, he and the members of the Opposition stood for Britain first, second and third, and anythxng whieh would not disturb our pleasant and valuable relations with Britain would have to be carefully cdnsidered. Did the British Government welcome the agreement? he askpd. As far -as fruit was concemed, said Mr Hamilton, there was a lot. of value in the agreement, but such was not the fese concerning butter and wool. He Went ■ on to refer to the fact that the German Ministry of Propaganda wa's discouraging the consumption. of butter in Germany and was encpuraging consumption only of commodities which ■ Germany herself could produce. There woxxld be no chance whatever of increasing the consumption of butter iu Germany. The Attorney-General (Hon. H. G. R. Mason) said the leader of the Opposition. had tried to state that because the agreement was beneficial to Germany and New Zealand it must of necessity be detrimental to Britain. He did not think the world was made that way. They had held that if something benefited one gide it- must harm someone else. If such were the case it would .kill international trade altogether. There was nothing in the Bill antagonistic to any other country, least of all to Britain. In fact, the proposed agreement was supported by Britain herself. Referring to Mr Hamilton 's reference to the low consumption of buttej in Germany, Mr Mason said the German people might have been denied butter through sheer necessity and he thought members of the House had a sufficiently high estimation of the ' German ; people , not to wisix to see them deprived of the opportunity of securing it. Mr H. S. S. Kyle stated that Nazx Germany of to-day was out to break up dexnocracy and he expressed surprise to see a Labour Government making an agreem&nt with that country. He was strongly opposed to the Bill and would. vote against it if given the opportunity of doing so. The Minister of Railways (Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said it was very difficult to understand the attitude of the Opposition towards the agreement when there was so much evidence of the desire of that party to sell butter fo Germany in the past. There was no danger tk the British or New Zealand manu- ■ facturer in the agreement ani it seemei to him it was very dxfficult indeed t« find any objection to the Bill. Mr Coates stated that if the Bill had come down quietly, withoufc the extravagant plaims advanced for it-by th Minister of Finance, he . was sxire il woxxld have gone through in a few xninutes. For the past 10 or 15 years there had been a balance of trade with Germany in our favour, so where was the necessity for the agreement? There was nothing new in the agreement which maintained practically only what had been suggested by past governments. Mr J. Hargest said he was not opposing the Bill, but it was re'asonable to assume that Germany was only concluding an .agreement because it was to her advahiage. It was not so much food that Germany wanted to-day as foreign eredits. Germany appeared to have a predeliction for breaking agreements, and although he could not remembei her having broken a trade agreement, what safeguard was there against her breaking, the present agreement after Nexf Zealand had made considerable purchases from her? Mr B. Roberts said past governments had tried to push our trade with the East. If1 it were right to do that was it not right to push our trade in Europe? He considered the Minister had made a very valuable contribution towards the marketing of butter. Mr S. G. Smith expressed disappointment that the Minister of Finance had not come back with an agreement extending trade with Britain, and said we might find ourselves sorry somfr day for concluding the present agreement. He saw the possibility of future difficulties in the r.greement with.a country possessing such a recoifd as the Govern-. ment of Germany had. If a division were taken on the Bill he would vote against it. . Mr Nash, replying, aaid there . was noiMgg »fw th* Hill,

but he was of Opinion that it would be' advantageous to both New Zealand and Germany. There was not a word in the agreement which. would restrict trade, It woxxld merely remove some of the barriers already existing. The Bill was Tead a second time on the voices and passed through ' the remaining stages without • discussion, the Minister of Finance stating in reply to a question by Mr Hamilton that' the duties woxild not, come into effect nntil a proclamation had been issued, probably this week.