SOMETHING NEW

Wairarapa Times-Age, 30 July 1943, Page 3

SOMETHING NEW

IN AFFAIRS OF NATIONS LEND-LEASE POLICY EXPLAINED BY MR NASH. HOPES FOR THE FUTURE. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. “I think that if the spirit which actuated the promoters of this Act is the spirit which prevails when the war is over we shall not have any arguments among the Allies as to who gave the most in this struggle,’’, said the Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, speaking as New Zealand Minister to Washington, when he gave an exposition of the principles of the lend-lease legislation to the House of Representatives last night.

Mr Nash, who reviewed the promotion of the Lend-Lease Act by President Roosevelt, said there was nothing in the world greater than the type of relationship which existed between the nations which were now called the United Nations. Lend-lease was mutual aid, the employment of all the resources of the Allies with one single mind—the defeat of the Axis Powers.

After giving the background of lendlease and the history of the events leading up to the passage of the LendLease Act by the American Government on March 11, 1941, the Minister mentioned that during the last, six months New Zealand had paid for £l, 500,000 worth of planes which were supplied by the United States but ordered before the Lend-Lease Act was passed. The Minister said that the United States had made it clear that as between the nations who were beneficiaries of lend-lease the assistance granted to them was to be measured in commodities and hot in terms of money. Indeed, in the long run it could not be measured in money. In saying this, he continued, it was necessary to mention that the United States Government had to buy its lend-lease commodities with money from its own people and this gave a money record. In the same way New Zealand expenditure on reverse lend-lease had to be measured in money in the Budget. There was no way of getting something for nothing. Up to April 30 of this year the United Slates had sent into the Dominion nearly 100,000,000 dollars’ worth _of lend-lease equipment and commodities, or £29,864,000 in New Zealand currency. To the end of June the total had risen to £32,000,000 in New Zealand money.

Referring to the Allies' increasing liability under lend-lease and reverse-lend-lease, Mr Nash said that as territory after territory was liberated the United Nations would send in more and more food and other necessities to the peoples they were releasing from enemy bondage. On concluding his speech Mr Nash was applauded from all sides of the House.

ALMOST BEYOND VALUE.

Thanking the Minister for his address, Mr Polson (Opposition, Stratford) said the principle of lend-lease was something new, splendid and almost beyond value. The United Nations, without thought of advantage, were sharing their resources under this great plan. If there was anything the people of the Dominion might have been afraid of it was that one or other of the Allied nations when emerging from the present struggle might have greater opportunities than the others. The Minister’s speech had relieved any feeling of anxiety in that regard, and the country would be reassured. It was clear that the President and people of the United States were concerned only in the victory of the United Nations, which would mean great sacrifices by and equal benefits for all. He was much interested in the Minister s reference to the removal of discriminatory tariffs. He did not know what the effect on the Dominion might be, but he imagined that it would not mean the destruction of those industries which were vital to the economy of the country.

BRITAIN’S CONTRIBUTION

Mr Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga), said that on the Minister s statement and the Budget figures it seemed that New Zealand would be in debit to America to the extent of £40,000,000 by the end of this financial year. In the last year and this we would receive that amount more in supplies from America than we were giving. Referring to Britain's position undei the agreement, he said the help she was receiving from America was no greater than what she was giving to her Allies.without charge. In addition to maintaining the American forces in Britain the United Kingdom was-shoul-dering the whole cost of the war in the Middle East and right through to Burma. Before lend-lease Britain had paid £1.500,000,000 to America for goods under the cash-and-carry system. Mr Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) said he was disappointed that the Minister did not deal in greater detail with the obligations that lendlease would involve this country in. They should have a correct picture of their obligations, and it was necessary to make arrangements to meet those obligations. Mr Bodkin also asked if anything was contemplated in the way of stabilising the exchange of the world. If there were to be a free exchange of goods and services then those goods and services had to be nieasuied by a common measuring rod. It seemed that a great deal would have to be done before there could be that free exchange of goods and services contemplated in the Atlantic Charter. They had to realise that the lend-lease principle imposed definite obligations.

REVERSE LEND-LEASE.

The Minister of Supply, Mr Sullivan, said ho did not think anyone would read from the Lend-Lease Act or the Atlantic Charter any meaning which would imply the destruction of the .Dominion’s industries, though there might be some modification. Speaking of reverse-lease-lend, Mr Sullivan said New Zealand had scaicely ever refused anything for which Britain and America had asked. The Dominion had made sacrifices in coastal shipping, for example, which had created great difficulties for us. The Americans in the Pacific had made requests for very considerable quantities of primary produce and processed commodities. In addition. ,we had commitments to Britain which we weie of course most Anxious to continue supplying. It might be that we would have to ask Britain to agree to some diversion, or we might not be able to supply the Pacific with all that was need-

ed there. The Minister added that New Zealand was supplying ships to the South Pacific and South-West Pacific. Wo had orders for some 400 more ships, including mine-sweepers and other types, for our Allies.

AVOIDANCE OF DEBTS.

In replying, Mr Nash said there was no provision in any of the lend-lease agreements for actual payment in cash. He agreed' with the member for the Bay of Plenty that there was some point in the statement that we were supplying primary produce to the American forces at prices which had been maintained at a low level, while we were charged for such supplies at .the present ruling prices in the United States. Referring to the question of discriminatory tariffs, Mr Nash said it was in America' that they would have to be reduced. There was only general reference to the reduction of tariffs in the Atlantic Charter agreement. Consideration of that did imply there would have to be a reduction in tariffs, but it did not mean that tariffs would have to be abolished altogether, The agreement referred to internal and external conditions, having regard to existing obligations. The Soviet Union was equally a party to the agreements, but no one would go so far as to suggest that Russia should waive all her control of her imports and exports, which in that country was absolute. The whole purpose of lend-lease arrangement was the avoidance of debts between the Allied countries after, the war. At the moment the application of the principles of the Atlantic Charter and lend-lease could not be put down in black and white.. The important thing was that the spirit underlying these great principles should permeate the peoples of the nations.