Commonwealth Views On Trade Policy

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27986, 5 June 1956, Page 11

Commonwealth Views On Trade Policy

(Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, June 3.

Most Commonwealth countries believe that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ conference in London this month will provide an opportunity for exploring new trade systems besides reviewing the 1932 Ottawa Agreement on trade preferences.

The Australian Prime Minister (Mr Menzies) has told Britain he wants to scrap the Ottawa Pact preferences and replace them with a new comprehensive agreement.

Britain has welcomed his suggestion for talks on the revision of the agreement. Canada prefers to remain neutral. India does not favour extending Imperial preference within the Commonwealth. Ceylon is prepared to give serious consideration to it. Other Commonwealth countries are generally non-committal. Reuter’s reports today showed:

Ottawa: Canada plans to remain neutral in Australia’s trade discussions with Britain. Federal sources think it unlikely that Canada’s Prime Ministei (Mr Louis St. Laurent) will take sides in Mr Menzies’s proposal that the 1932 Ottawa Agreement be scrapped The Canadian view is that Australia, with an expanding manufacturing industry, wants to retain the British market for Australian raw materials while cutting down the imports of British manufactured goods into Australia.

New Delhi: India is generally not in favour of an extension of th? Imperial preference system, according to

a Ministry of Commerce spokesman. With G.A.T.T. in force, there was no possibility of new preferences being negotiated, he added. ‘‘Therefore the proposal can only be entertained if the countries concerned resign from G.A.T.T. or get special leave for their own agreement.” Colombo: The Ceylon Government will give serious consideration to anv proposal to replace the Ottawa Agreement, according to the Minister of Commerce and Trade (Mr R. G. Senanayake).

Wellington: New Zealand has made practically no comment on Mr Menzies’s suggestion, probably because of the remark of the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) before leaving for London that it was not the present intention of the New Zealand Government to seek a review of the Ottawa Agreement.

Cape Town: South Africa has not so far commented officially on Mr Menzies’s proposal. Karachi: A spokesman for the Pakistan Ministry of Commerce said he did not believe a review of the Ottawa Agreement would affect his country

London: British Ministers and offi cials concerned with trade and fin .nc« welcome Australia’s proposal for non:

prehensive trade talks. They are we.' 1 aware of Australian cr : t.cisms of present trade relation* and think the I talks will be an opportunity for dear ' ing the air. Minisfr*-c and officials were chary 01 I common* ing. but the P-rhi~h Govern ■ rrent's initiat position fo« ihe talks is I known. The British side will argue 1

that trading arrangements with Australia must be looked at as a whole. Besides the Ottawa Agreement, Britain has a meat agreement and also arrangements relating to sugar with Australia. Australian goods enter Britain free of import restrictions, whereas Australia imposes import restrictions on British goods which fluctuate with inconvenience to British exporters. The formal British-Australian trade talks will not form part of the Prime Ministers’ conference. They are regarded in London as coinciding with it.

The main difficulty in British-Aus-tralian trade relations is that Australian wool and wheat are international ccmmodities with international prices and Australia has never been greatly interested in Imperial preference on them. Britain’s manufactured goods lend themselves more readily to preferences—but a*so to import restrictions for the sake of the importing country's balance of payments and industrialisation prog mmes. Reuter's financial editor considers the iden] solution for both countries would be a strengthening of Australia’s reserves, so that she could relax and eventually dismantle her import restriction structure.