NO SACRIFICE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 360, 22 October 1932, Page 4

NO SACRIFICE

Perhaps the most vigorous assault upon the Ottawa agreement delivered from the Labour benches was that emanating from Mr. M. J. Savage. While every other nation was rapidly moving toward economic indej pendence, he claimed, New Zealand industries were to be saeri- | ficed for a spurious brand of i Imperial preference. This statement is packed so full of inaccuracies that it reveals at once the weakness of the Labour attaek on the Ottawa agreements, Every other nation is not moving | toward economic independence. i There was the tendency in that ! direction before the Ottawa Con- | f erence was held, but British nations, in the Imperial Economic Conference, acknowledged that ; economic independence was neiI ther desirable nor wholly posj sible. They agreed to substitute | economic co-operation for the atj tempted independence and to direct their policies in future to- : ward the production of those ; goods which they were best fit- { ted to supply. Thus trade, which ' was being killed by the efforts of countries to be industrially self-contained, would be revived 1 by a renewal of willingness to

, buy and sell. Not only does this apply to Empire countries, but | it has been clearly stated in the ; speeches of British leaders that the Empire is willing and anxious to assist in reviving world trade — if foreign nations will agree that trade is an exchange of goods and that they will buy as well as sell. It is ridiculous to assert, as Mr. Savage did, that New Zealand's contribution to this policy is to be made by sacrificing her own industries. The sacrihce hitherto made is a small reduction in the tariff on : four classes of goods. Where local industries are affected there is still a protection of 271 per cent., compared with 30 or 32. V per cent. previously. A further overhaul of the protective tariff has been promised, but this will not be undertaken without permitting local industries to state their case fully. Moreover, the opportunity which Britain desires for her manufacturers is one of "reasonable competition." Another way of stating the position is that local ■ industrialists will only be denied "unreasonable protection." Labour is seizing what it plainly considers to be a chance of making party capital, and it poses as the friend

of the secondary industries. But what can it promise more than the reasonable protection which is still assured under the Ottawa agreement ? It offers exclusion — an embargo on imports here. Without the governing factor of possible competition from overseas this would involve either far-reaching State price control in the interests of the consumer or that primary industries, compelled to sell in a market not so sheltered, would be loaded with higher costs. The Labour plan is impracticable. We doubt if it has even been seriously considered. Evidence of the casual consideration ko far given is to be found in Labour silence on the revenue part of the tariff system. There could be no revenue under a classification of goods as either free or prohibited.. Whefe would Labour find the money to make good this loss of over £5,000,000 annually?