N.Z. TRADE WITH BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25365, 12 December 1947, Page 8

N.Z. TRADE WITH BRITAIN

MR NASH’S STATEMENT AT HAVANA CRITICISM BY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, December 11. "The extraordinary statements by the Minister of Finance (Mr W. Nash) at the Havana trade conference, not having been contradicted, must be taken as correctly stated,” said the president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand (Mr Haskell Anderson) to the Masterton Chamber of Commerce last night. “One statement by Mr Nash was that once the balance of payments system had been accepted as in the proposed international trade charter. New Zealand will give up the tariff preferences it extends to Britain/’ said Mr Anderson. “This is an amazing statement not only because it announces the willingness of the New Zealand Government to throw away the keystone on which trade between New Zealand and the United Kingdom depends, but also because our Minister of Customs leaves it until he arrives in another country to make this epoch-making declaration, which the New Zealand Parliament has neither authorised nor been given the opportunity to discuss.

“What authority has Mr Nash to abandon New Zealand’s preference to British goods and what compensating advantages, if any, does he expect to get in its place? “New Zealand will view with the greatest concern any disturbance of Imperial preference without concrete trade compensation from other countries at least equal to what is sacrificed by New Zealand. Mr Nash should be so instructed forthwith by the New Zealand Government.

“New Development” “That Mr Nash is prepared to abandon Imperial preference without specific compensation is an entirely new development and one not in accord with assurances that have been given the people of New Zealand. In the House of Representatives on November 11. Mr Nash denied that the general system of Imperial preferences had been impaired at Geneva, and he affirmed as one of the seven imperative principles to govern the attitude of the New Zealand delegation at Havana that there was to be a reduction of preferences on a quid pro quo basis only, and not on a general unqualified basis. “Other statements by Mr Nash were that exchange Control cannot be exercised without Npw Zealand’s present system .of import control, and that if New Zealand lifted import licensing it would be without currency reserves in a short time. “It is regrettable that Mr Nash allows his policy to colour the facts. Exchange control could be operate! and has been operated here in the past without selection being at all necessary. Of course, exchange control limjts imports in the ‘ total, but detailed prohibition or allowance of specific imports is a policy practice which the New Zealand Government has developed for totally different reasons which have as much relation to exchange control as chalk to cheese. “It is regrettable that Mr Nash is again stirring up trouble with other nations by trying to defend, on fallacious’ grounds, an indefensible practice.

“As to Mr Nash’s claim that if New Zealand lifted import licensing it would be without currency reserves in a short time, we positively disproved this with Mr Nash just before his departure for Havana as far as importations from the United Kingdom are concerned. “It seems that Mr Nash would do better cleaning out his Augean stable instead of mis-stating New Zealand’s affairs to an international assembly which, knows differently anyway.”