U.S. WOOL BILL

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25250, 31 July 1947, Page 5

U.S. WOOL BILL

COMMENT BY MR H. E. BLYDE

COMPARISON WITH N.Z.

PROTECTION 'The Press" Special Service

<P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 30. “We are aiuiuyeu at the atvnucie of the United oiaies to tne impox tauon oi wool,’’ saiu me acung-president (Mr H. E. niyae) in his aaoress tne annual uumimon conference oi J?eaeratea Farmers in Wellington to-aay. ' But is tne attitude oi cne United States over wool so very much diflerent from our own attitude?” The Uniied States wuoigrcwing industry was an undeveloped industry, said Mr Biyde, particularly when compared with tne efficiency of New Zealand anu Australia, af the Uniied States claimed tnat it was entitled to protect ns wooigrowing industry, ‘did its attitude differ very greatly from New v Zealand’s attitude in desiring heavy, or complete, protection fur its secondary industries? he asked. Tne commonsense viewpoint should be cnat wooigrowing in the .United States was never likely to be as efficient as wooigrowing in Australia and New Zealanu. To suggest tnat such an industry should be mgnly protected was simply to approve oi a process which was economically wasteiui. tsy the same token, many of New Zealand’s secondary industries were never likely to become really efficient. “Is it not the sensible view, thererore, that the countries of the world should bend their energies towards producing those things wmeh they can produce efficiently?’’ asked Mr Blyae. “In New Zealand we have secondary industries which have demonstrated that they can hold their own against the world. They need no protection. Would it not pay to concentrate on those, and leave the inefficient ones to lend for themselves and go out of business if they cannot make the grade? If we adopt such an attitude, would we not then be on sound ground when we object to such measures as the United States Wool Bill? But can we logically object to the United states’ protection of her woolgrowing industry when we are doing a similar thing with some of our ‘secondary industries?”