The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1968. Efforts To Export

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31579, 17 January 1968, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1968. Efforts To Export

New Zealand’s Assistant Trade Commissioner in Melbourne (Mr D. D. M. Stewart) said some hard things about New Zealand manufacturers’ efforts to sell their products in Australia, and about Canterbury manufacturers in particular. His statement that many manufacturers have not shown the vigour and tenacity needed to enter the Australian market and to compete against Australia’s imports from other countries is disturbing. In this he was saying nothing that has not been said before. So it was surprising that the president of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association (Mr A. S. Farrar) —a knowledgeable and successful exporter himself —should reply so crossly on behalf of his association. Devaluation of New Zealand’s currency gave manufacturers here an opportunity to enjoy an advantage in Australia. Mr Farrar said that after devaluation was announced “ a number ” of Canterbury manufacturers went to Australia to develop markets. Was that number sufficiently impressive to discount Mr Stewart’s observations? Did the opportunity attract any more manufacturers into the export field? Mr Stewart did not say that all manufacturers were apathetic towards exporting; what he said was that New Zealand’s trade representatives in Australia were disappointed that “far too many” manufacturers were apathetic towards the opportunities to increase their turnover by exporting. One might ask why should they have worried about the extra work, and the additional risk, while business in New Zealand’s own market was brisk? The answer lies, in part, in the slackening of business activity at home that now confronts many industries. Those manufacturers who have already established even a foothold in overseas markets are better placed to maintain production and perhaps expand output. Others must now start from scratch to establish an overseas market. They will have to follow the tough course that Mr Stewart and many others have prescribed. Spokesmen for the manufacturers have quite reasonably drawn attention to the successes of exporters. It is no less reasonable for an official to draw attention to shortcomings and failures and to recommend even sterner efforts to overcome them and to replace them by successes on a broader front. Now that Mr Stewart’s criticisms have been supported by the Secretary of Industries and Commerce (Mr M. J. Moriarty), the public need no longer doubt that some manufacturers have been “letting the “side down”. The Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association will do itself more credit if it gingers up the laggards in its own ranks instead of criticising trade commissioners.