Our High Commissioner

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 165, 10 April 1934, Page 14

Our High Commissioner

Sir, —Tour correspondent, “Unemployed/’ raises several important questions in your issue of April 3. I assume that he has visited the High Commissioner s office in London and is thus acquainted with past and present High Commissioners. Unless my assumption is correct, your correspondent is hardly a fit person to write upon such a subject. However, he has mentioned several good points, and I agree with him that the expenditure incurred by the office of recent years (last year £43,000) is far too great a price to pay for the services rendered. This is particularly true when one considers that the work of the High Commissioner has been considerably reduced since the advent of restricted migration from the Homeland and the activities of the various produce boards—dairy, meat, fruit and honey. A few years ago our High Commissioner , was called upon to act as this country s representative in each and all of its activities. This he did at approximately onethird the present-day cost to New Zealand. I agree with your correspondent since there is now less to do the costs should be reduced correspondingly. Although agreed upon this one point, there are'several other statements upon which “Unemployed” and myself are bound to differ. , , , Firstly, he speaks of “Telling England her duty,”' etc. “England” has no need to be told her duty; she already knows that! I suggest that since about 93 per cent, of our produce is bought and pan! for by the English people (mostly by the' unemployed and the poorer classes) we should be thankful to find such a market at all. England con obtain all the foodstuffs she requires without considering this country; this fact should not be overlooked by “Unemployed.” England is our only market. Mainly on the question of “quality” other countries refuse to handle our producewhy, then, complain that England pays too small a price for our exports? I believe we receive “full market” value for some of the foods shipped for sale. Apples, full of bitterpit; cheese that even the navvy would refuse; beef, too tough to eat; and butter so salt and rancid that even cooks in second-rate boarding-houses would refuse to use it. Instead of telling “England her duty we should l be very' thankful that there are people so “poor” at Home as to warrant any sale at all for our produce, at the best “irregular” quality. Mtiy I inform “Unemployed" that the English petpie are “keen” judges of quality and of value, and that they will always pay a fair market price for goods of quality? If, however, we think that the English people are prepared to pay “full market value” for goods supplied plus the cost of interest, on “inflated” land values, well, all I can say is: we must think again. They may be fair, but they are not fools. There are several points in. your correspondent’s letter to which I should'take exception. Firstly: £5OOO per annum is •not'too high a price to pay for an efficiejit High Commissioner, provided the “office costs” were considerably reduced. A good man. in such a capacity is well worth £5OOO per annum. Y.our correspondent. however, should remember that the High Commissionenship is a ‘ poetical plum,” and qualification alone does not warrant the appointment. It is for this reason the present High Commissioner’s term is unlikely to be extended beyond the appointed time. . . . —I am. etC " COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER. Palmerston North, April 2.