London Criticism Of N.Z. Import Control

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28479, 8 January 1958, Page 9

London Criticism Of N.Z. Import Control

(Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, January 7.

Several London businessmen have written to “The Times,” expressing regret at and criticism of the New Zealand Govern m ent's decision to reimpose import control. One of them, Mr Peter Malynn. an export merchant, who was recently in New Zealand, says that Mr Nash’s announcement did not really come as a surprise to those who, like himself, were in New Zealand during the General Election. This “on-restriction-off-restric-tion” seesaw, he says, was at best a political manouevre and high lighted the inherent weakness of the present trade between Britain and the rest of the world.

“It may be recalled that from time to time we are exhorted to export or perish and consequently exporters spend time and money in obtaining markets relatively free of restriction and persevere with their efforts to establish a trading beachhead and even forgo making a profit for two or three years in order that some trade may be obtained.” says Mr Malynn.

“At the end of the initial expensive stage, at a time when they are beginning to make a little profit, the government of their new market without very much warning reimposes restrictions and then the exporter is denied the fruit of his honest endeavour.

“The answer to this problem must be found quickly, not onlv for the sake of the United Kingdom, but also as a safeguard in future against the bad feeling which actions of this kind engender among exporters. “New Zealand is a small country and while there I was amazed at the speed With which trading reputations are made and broken The seesaw between freedom and restriction in trade will tend to discourage a steady stream of good quality British goods.” says Mr Malynn “It will encourage the jerrymanufacturer and all the archenemies of the quality trade that has made the United Kingdom prominent among manufacturers.” says Mr Newton Jones, chairman of Jones and Company, buyers and shippers. “There will be widespread regret at the steps the New Zealand Government felt necessary to take in order to preserve its funds of overseas exchange. “Undoubtedly many persons would consider the methods n proposed to employ—direct prohibition of a wide range of imports and the rigid licensing of the remainder —were far from being the best solution. It is fair, however, to point out that the Gov ernment of the United Kingdom must accept a large measure of blame for the circumstances in which New Zealand has founo itself.

‘As a matter of policy, since

the war we have subsidised agri cultural production in the United Kingdom at a rate of approximately £3oom a year. These subsidies cause to be produced and grown here agricultural produce which comes into direct or indirect competition with agricultural produce available from the Dominions and the Colonial Empire. “As a result the Dominions are increasingly forced to look elsewhere for their markets for agricultural produce. Thus, in effect agricultural subsidies in the United Kingdom are having the effect of weakening the economicbonds which join the Commonwealth.

“Many of ujs consider one of the great dangers is the inability of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth to exert their proper influence upon world affairs. “It is. however, quite unrealistic to expect us to be able to take our rightful place in the world until the pound sterling is solid and reliable currency,” Mr Jones says. “This cannot take place until we revert to sound economic and trading policies.”