Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1939. BAD ADVICE IN BRITAIN.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 31 May 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1939. BAD ADVICE IN BRITAIN.

JT must be hoped that the President of the British Board of Trade (Mr Oliver Stanley) will not dream of accepting tlie advice offered him by the London “Daily Mail,” in an article quoted in one of yesterday’s cablegrams, as to the line he should take in his impending discussions with the New. Zealand Minister of Finance (Mr Nash). In its article the “Daily Mail acviset Mr Stanley “to stress Britain’s concern at New Zealand s restriction of imports,” and went on to observe that there would be greater sympathy with the Savage Governments financial difficulties if it had not brought them on itself by socialistic schemes which have “helped to reduce New Zealand s sterling balance in London from thirty millions sterling to seven millions in a year.”

Individual commentators in Britain or elsewhere of course are entitled to form and express any opinion they like on policy developments in New Zealand, but no British Goveiiiment retaining its sober senses is likely to lay itself open m the slightest degree to the charge of taking sides in the party polities of this Dominion. Members of the Savage Government themselves presumably are by this time aware that their has been in some respects extravagant and unwise and that it has in a. measure defeated their own declared aim of increasing the effective purchasing power in the hands of the people. Any adjudication on this matter, however, is the domestic, business of the people of New Zealand and most decidedly is not the business of the British Government.

Mr Stanley would show a very poor appreciation of his responsibilities if he followed the example of the Daily Mail and sought to interfere in New Zealand party polities. . The British Minister would be even more univise, however, if he accepted the advice of the London newspaper and stressed “Britain’s concern at New Zealand’s restriction of imports. As the principal market for our exports of primary produce, Britain has every claim to the trade preference we freely accord her, but she would get badly out of step if she sought to dictate to this country regarding the total volume of its external trade. It is most unlikely that the British Government would think for a. moment of doing anything of the kind.

It is true that in Article 8 of the Ottawa Agreement of 1932, New Zealand undertook to institute an inquiry into existing protective duties and where necessary to reduce them to a level that would place the United Kingdom producer in the position of a domestic competitor, that, is, as the article runs,

that the protection afforded to the New Zealand producer shall be on a level which will give the United Kingdom producer full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production.

In 1933, New Zealand amended her tariff accordingly, “so that (to quote a book by Dr W. B. Butch), of the 103 changes made in the already liberal British preferential tariff, 100 items consisted of reductions or the abolition of duties.”

It is now being suggested that th 6 restrictions imposed by New Zealand are inconsistent with the Ottawa Agreement, but it has to be remembered that Britain has herself asserted in principle and practice I he right to regulate the volume of her imports—for example in the current restrictions on the total volume of her meat imports from all sources. On that account and others, the suggestion that New Zealand is prejudicing her position on the British market rests obviously on inadequate grounds.

Where preference to Britain is concerned, it is a fact of commanding importance that New Zealand buys more goods per head of population than any other Dominion, ft is unlikely that New Zealand will lose that position under the operation of the restrictions on imports now imposed. It is certain that, in any conditions that can now be envisaged, she will continue to buy more British goods per head of population than several other Dominions.

New Zealand lias received no special consideration whatever on account of her heavy purchases per head of British goods. There has been no change in British policy in this particular since it was stated, in 1935, by Lord (then Mr) Baldwin in his reply to a letter from Mr Coates. The, essence of the then British Prime Minister’s statement was that “so far as the United Kingdom market was concerned, each participating Dominion at Ottawa got in substance the benefit of concessions given to others.” If this policy were to be varied, New Zealand evidently would be entitled to claim a specially favoured position on the United Kingdom market on account of her relatively heavy purchases of British goods. Suggestions ,that New Zealand should be penalised in some way because she is now restricting her total imports, though even so she will probably continue to buy more British goods per head of population than any other Dominion, evidently are fantastically unjust. It may be expected that the British Government will not even consider adopting any suggestion of the kind.

In its advice to the President of the Board of Trade, the “Daily Mail” used the unenlightened language of a bygone age —an age in which oversea territories were regarded as colonies to be exploited by the Mother Country. So tar, at least, as the Dominions are concerned, the day of that policy has euqted in the British Empire.