TRADE WITH AMERICA

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 73, 19 December 1929, Page 13

TRADE WITH AMERICA

<si r —Your comments upon the duties Imposed by the United States Government with respect to dairy produce, wool, etc., are very timely and should attract the serious attention oi‘ those in charge of the affairs of this country. We have heard so much lately from American interests here regarding the large percentage increase in exports from this country to 'the United States and how they are anxious to encourage trade between the two countries that we are apt to tail to appreciate the real position. The new duties should make us realise that the Americans, despite their professions to the contrary, do not want us to sell to them, but they want to sell to us. Det us fully grasp that fact. The value of goods purchased by New Zealand from the United States is com’phr actively small, and possibly the latter would not care twopence if it lost the lot (although it chases business very keenly here), but the British manufacturers would be very glad of it. It would well repay us to give Great Britain what we have in the past given to Australia and the United States. The former has treated us just as badly as the latter and its action is less excusable. You have quite rightly touched upon the need for a change in the methods employed by British manufacturers with respect to their overseas trade. We are all aware that for various reasons Britain was not able for several years after the war to . conduct such an active campaign for overseas trade as some of her foreign rivals, but those difficulties do not exist now. The antiquated methods persist, however, and in many cases British' houses attempt to do business in this country through Australian agents. Such people do not deserve what business they do get, as in the first place it is an insult to New Zealand to be treated as a sub-agent of Australia, and secondly the British manufacture! hail" dicaps himself by'paying two commisblous or profits in some other form. Although they should know better now, possibly the term “Australasia” is misleading to some mercantile and manufacturing concerns in the Old Country, and a more determined effort should be made bv the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the British (U.K.) Manufacturers Association of New Zealand to nave the objectionable term abolished. Much .might be done through the High Commissioner, as I am sure Mr. Wilford would lend his support in this matter. The British Trade Commissioner, Mr. I’aish, could do valuable work in this connection. So long as “Australasia is allowed to be used to embrace New Zealand, so long shall we fail to gam a real national standing in Britain or elsewhere. New Zealanders are quite naturally resentful of being placed under Australian control, and the sympathy of the people here for those at Home is inclined to be affected when British manufacturing concerns place their Dominion business under the charge of an Australian board. This sort of thing means less employment for New Zealanders. —I am, etc., V “NATIONAL.’ Wellington, December 9.