Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1939. NEW ZEALAND DEFENDED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 17 January 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1939. NEW ZEALAND DEFENDED

JN extracts from articles in. the “New Statesman” and the “Economist” cabled at the end of last week, representatives of both radical and conservative opinion in Britain raised their voices in defence of New Zealand against the attack lately made upon it by the Federation of British Industries—an attack in which it was asserted that this country was excluding British manufactures and must expect to suffer in its own marketing operations in Britain. The attack wilfully, or blindly, overlooked the fact that there is not the slightest prospect of New Zealand reducing the volume of its total purchases from Britain, although it is quite likely that there may be some variation in the classes of British goods purchased.

Of Ihe two papers mentioned above, the “Economist” defended New Zealand from a somewhat limited standpoint, but while it blamed Labour prodigality for the situation that has arisen, it pointed out that other countries similarly afflicted had imposed import restrictions with the support of British manufacturers. Then again, while it accused New Zealand of breaking “the letter, if not the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement,” it concluded that “New Zealand, considering her size, will remain a better field for British manufacturers than most of the Dominions.” Although this is a rather left-handed compliment, it embodies elements of common sense of which British manufacturers would be wise to take note for their future guidance.

The “New Statesman,” in its much more sweeping defence of New Zealand, was perhaps rhetorical rather than convincing. Suggestions that the unco-ordinated shock tactics of two groups of British capitalists may drive this country into some wild course of repudiation have, it may be hoped, little enough foundation in reality.

What needs to be recognised, in Britain and in this country, is that great progressive changes are bound to occur in the economic relationship in which we are linked with Britain and that any attempt to insist that things must remain as they have, been—in order, for example, that British manufacturers may continue to sell to a Dominion whatever they have been in the habit of selling—is foolish.

The fundamental principle of trade is that it must lie to the mutual advantage of the parties that engage in it, and it certainly does not devolve upon one party in a trading relationship to dictate to the other. The special circumstances arising out of our period of Labour rule in this country have only sharpened and emphasised to some extent aspects of our economic development, and of our economic relationship with Britain which in any case were forcing themselves increasingly upon attention.

Fundamentally, the issue at stake is the right of this country to expand and enlarge its 'economic activities in the manner that seems right and most desirable to its people. That right is recognised, and indeed is affirmed unreservedly, by responsible opinion in all parts of the Empire. The outcry against New Zealand recently raised by the Federation of British Industries is perhaps chiefly alarming as suggesting that some British manufacturers are lagging sadly behind the times. It is fairly plain, in any eas'e, that the task that falls to British manufacturers, as to a good many other people, is that of adapting their operations to the changing demands and altering stresses of an evolving world. Trade, even within the British Empire, never has been static, and ih present-day conditions the pace of its evolution is being speeded up remarkably.

As the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr R. B. Bennett, lias said, only an adjustment of organisation for the development of resources within the Empire will solve the Empire’s problems. Great and far-reaching extensions of economic enterprise in all the Dominions, as well as in the Mother Country, are inevitable if the Empire is to evolve in a manner worthy of its past. It is open to the leaders of British industry to play an active and worthy part in that necessary development. They certainly will not assist it, though it may be hoped also they will not arrest it, by petulant and foolish complaints over points of detail. If they carry out their own functions efficiently and with enterprise, British manufacturers probably will find no just cause for complaint in their trade dealings with New Zealand as time goes on.