BRITISH PREFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 287, 4 September 1928, Page 13

BRITISH PREFERENCE

AND TRADE WITHIN EMPIRE POLICY OF NEW ZEALAND STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF LANDS Dominion Special Service. Te Arolia, September 3. New Zealand’s policy in regard to British preference and trade within the Empire was enunciated by the Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) in the course of a public address at Waitoa to-night. The Minister’s remarks were in the nature of , an answer to propaganda circulated by tlie Country Party. “ ‘British preference, with Empire free trade within ten years,’ appears to be a foremost plank in the policy of the Country Party,” the Minister said. “As an ideal,. Empire free trade has many exceedingly enticing attractions, but only those who have given the very slightest investigation to its varied problems are foolish enough to talk of the possibility of it being brought within the realm of practical politics for many years to come. Many great men since the days of Chamberlain, its first great pro-consul, both at the heart of the and throughout the Dominions, have gone down politically as well as physically in a fight for the ideal, and although progress has been made, there still remain barriers seeming almost insurmountable to all but those of the calibre of Messrs. Keegan, Fiest, the editor , of ‘Farming First,’ and a few other would-be statesmen as yet not brought to light. British preference has for long been considered the first step towards an Empire ideal, and although the attempt has been made by successive Prime Ministers and Governments in no small way to blaze the path. I have no hesitation in asserting that the present Primo Minister and his Government have made the boldest step towards the ideal of complete British preference which has as yet been made in this Dominion. “The laudations of the British Press, on the one hand and the bitterness shown towards us by those within the Dominion engaged almost entirely in foreign importations on the -other, provide proof enough of what I say. if proof were needed. British preference is one thing, Empire preference is another. I feel sure that the people of New Zealand will never submit its workers io the competition of coloured labour in other portions of the Empire, nor will tlie producers or anyone else in this country advocate throwing open our doors to imports of sister Dominions, while they in turn continue to raise higitftr and higher tariff walls against our exports. Tariff Increases of 1927. “The Country Party paper. ‘Fanning First,’ published a few months ago a list of 35 articles or lines upon which duties were imposed last year, allegedly to the detriment of farmers. Of this total, iny reply is that at the most only six affected British imports. The tendency since the war, especially in certain foreign countries, has been more and more to trade through huge monopolies and trusts, this being particularly so in the ■ United States, which in some cases is in collaboration with our sister Dominion of Canada. Particularly has this been the case with respect to agricultural and farm implements in the Northern Hemisphere,' where, in conjunction with the shipping combine, the International Harvester Trust has practically a stranglehold upon the bulk of exports. After long and careful examination the Government came to the conclusion that the only effective answer to such a combination was to assist in the building up of a local industry, despite the heavy odds against it. We bad before us undeniable proofs that. in Argentine and other countries having little or no tariffs against such implements, they were being sold at much higher rates in many eases than similar implements were being sold at in countries protecting local industries. I am informed by the head of the Customs Department that the total duty collected on British implements since the imposing of the tariff nearly a year ago amounts to only £43, while the head of the Department of Industries and Commerce, which comes under my Control, informs me that while the price charged by leading implement manufacturers has been considerably reduced, that of importers has as yet remained practically stationary.

I am often asked the question why effective action is not taken by the Government against overseas predatory trusts? It would bo just as sensible to ask why tlie revolutions of a ten-thousand horse-power flywheel cannot be stopped with a spoonful of water.”