“TRADE AMONG THE FAMILY”

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 255, 12 July 1926, Page 6

“TRADE AMONG THE FAMILY”

The new High Commissioner for New Zealand has made a very good beginning as a publicist for trade within the Empire, to judge from his reported utterances as guest of honour at the Empire Producers’ luncheon in London. “‘Trade Among the Family,’” said Sir James Parr, “is our slogan, supplementing and cementing the ties of kinship and language.” As Minister of Education in New Zealand, Sir James Parr proved to be an excellent propagandist for his Department. His activities in that connection did much to stimulate public interest in educational questions. If he should prove to be as effective in Imperial propaganda his appointment will have been amply justified. In the course of his remarks, the High Commissioner, stressing the importance of consolidating and extending Imperial trade connections, urged that British manufacturers should endeavour to get into closer touch with our special needs, and instanced the preponderance of foreign motor-cars in New Zealand, which, he said, was a tragedy. There are signs that the British manufacturers, not only of motor-cars, but of other things, are becoming increasingly alive to the importance of this aspect of the question. In fairness to them, it should be remembered that British industry got completely out of step during the war, lost ground tremendously, and is only just beginning to recover. This process of recovery is seriously impeded by a period of industrial unrest which followed the war and which still prevails. That apart, however, there is no doubt that the British manufacturer has still something to learn from his American rivals in regard to studying and meeting overseas requirements. That he has at last awakened to the importance of this side of hss business is something. Coincident with Sir James Parr’s appeal to the British manufacturer, the question of Imperial preference was raised in the House of Commons. A Labour motion for the deletion of the clause stabilising preferential trading within the Empire for ten years was defeated by 227 votes to 114. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Churchill) very properly pointed out that in a question of this kind there should be, as far as possible, stability and continuity of policy. There is a moral, as well as a constitutional side to this question. It may be argued that it is competent for a new political party in power to reverse the fiscal policy of its predecessor. The Labour motion above referred to quite evidently contemplated such a reversal of policy on the question of Imperial preference. Such a proposal takes no account of the business commitments involved. The character and direction of business operations are largely influenced by fiscal conditions. Commitments entered upon under one tariff system would probably not be entertained under a different system. There must, therefore, be some reasonable assurance of continuity if Imperial preference is to become something more than a platform idea.