OTTAWA TREATIES

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 665, 18 October 1933, Page 2

OTTAWA TREATIES

AUSTRALIA FINDS A M1ARKED BENEFIT IN PRICES. THJE OFFIOIAL FIGURES." ' t; - * Although, from the beginning, the pttawa Agreement was assailed, first hy one interest and then another, the facts are beginning to talk in .its favour, writes "Politicus" in a Sydney paper. " Comparisons are now availablc, in British Board of Trade returns, . These cover the trade both ways; between Britain and Australia, for the first; half of 1932 and the first h'alf of 1933-. According to the figures placed' on: record — It is not true that Australian manufactures have been tied in a-bag and drowned, as was excitedly asserted. It is- not- true that British manufactures were treacherously excluded 'from the Australian market, as York'shire and LanCashire bitterly complained. It is not true that the Agreement itself has been hetrayed, as certain members of the 'Country Party declared in Australia. It is not true that British' farmers were sacrificed to Dominion farmers, as was feared hy farmers' representatives in the House of Commons. It is true that, as between the halfyear of 1932 and the half-year of 1933, the British -Australian trade was strengthened in both directions; which, in these' times of shattered internatiorial trade, is of vital benefit to . both British' countries.

Trade Strengthened. The figures speak very clearly and ' are easily understood. Britain's total exports, in the halfyea'r ' coinparison, f ell in volume hy 3.4 per cent., aiid her total impdrts by 3.2 per cent. Practicaily identical figures./ Britain's home industry, therefore, j ' was in an ■ unaltered posi-tion, the | imports and exports remaining i'n the same ratio to each other. But the trade • between Britain and 'Australia was firmly strengthened, to the benefit of both' partners. Australia in the 1933 half-year took 5.68 per cent. of Britain's total saies, but in 1932 only 4.70 pfer ient. This was not a swamping of Australia's manuf actures, 'but a healthy 'response in Australia's buyirig power. ' Australia in the 1933 half-year sup'plied 8.09 per cent. of Britain's total purchases; but in 1932 only 7.40 per cent. 'Our market in Britain was thus better secured for us. Those developments having happened since Ottawa, it cannot be said j that the agreement h'as f ailed, either from inefficiency or from' betjrayal. As ■ a reply to any such- contention you see the double growth of BritishAustralian trade. Australia will be well served hy a continuance of that trade tendency. All- countries, anxiously looking for markets outside themselves, are meetin harriers, facing the competition of undercutting, - or confronting somebody's sheer inahility to huy. Australia itself found harriers in Europe, and is threatened wit-h other losses of markets. In one place we shall compete with subsidised' American wh'eat." In another place, there is talk of turning- a'way from Australian wool. ' ' i Rohust trade within the Empire is powerful to counteract such losses or threatened losses in foreign markets. If the figures quoted above are to be conceded 'any meaning at all, they mean that the Ottawa Agreement has •been producirig results.