QUOTA ISSUE

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 189, 9 May 1934, Page 9

QUOTA ISSUE

Sir H. Samuel Attacks British Policy MR THOMAS’S DEFENCE Inquiry Not Regarded as Offer NO DISCRIMINATION By Telegraph.—Pres Assn.—Copyright. London, May 7. In the House of Commons, Sir Herbert Samuel (L.), moving the reduction of the Dominions’ vote, said that though the New Zealand communication did not amount to an offer, it was an inquiry no business man should neglect. The Government’s negative responsemight be a turning point in the direction of British policy in relation to the Dominions. The Government’s policy of restricting and contracting trade was causing profound concern in Western Canada and Western Australia Ln Western Australia the people were so gravely concerned that there had been a considerable secession movement to obtain freedom to make ther own commercial arrangements. Mr. Lyous had stated that Australia would have to seek markets elsewhere. Mr. J. 14. Thomas: Do you suggest that .the Western Australian secession movement has been caused by what Is done here or in Australia? Sir Herbert Samuel: To a great extent both. Cries of “No.” Sir Herbert Samuel continued, saying that if Australia had made the same inquiry as New Zealand and received the same reply, it would have been exceedingly detrimental to Western Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth. The reply sent to New Zealand was tlie natural result of the policy of economic nationalism which the Government vigorously condemned but energetically pursued. It was Mr. Elliot’s slap-dash, happy-go-lucky policy which had caused the rejection of New Zealand’s suggestion. The Government should welcome every offer for the reduction or abolition of tariffs Free trade with New Zealand would rentier the greatest service to the Empire. In his reply Mr. Thomas said that if New Zealand had made an actual offer of free trade Britain would then be forced to demand the same treatment from Australia or treat Australian goods differently from New Zealand. Mr. Thomas cited figures to show that, despite the economic depression of the last few years, every Dominion affected by the Ottawa Agreement had increased its trade with Britain and that Britain had increased its trade with them, states a British Official Wireless message. The fact that while world trade had gone down trade within the Empire had improved was a sufficient justification for the Ottawa Agreements. He had received abundant evidence of appreciation by the Dominions of the way Britain was conducting her side of the agreements. Referring specially to New Zealand, he said that a number of people there had urged upon their Government that, if all tariffs against British goods were removed, Britain would take everything New Zealand cared to send. The New Zealand communication in regard to this was not taken by tlie British Government as an offer because it was perfectly obvious that no New Zealand Government could entertain such a position, he reiterated. Mr. Thomas pointed out that 25 per cent, of New Zealand’s revenue was from tariffs, and said that it was impossible to reconcile a position whereby one Dominion would be given particular preference against another in tlie same commodity. Sir Herbert Samuel’s motion was defeated by 207 votes to 38. The minority consisted of Labourites. Samuelite Liberals, and one Conservative. NEWSPAPER VIEWS “News-Chronicle” Assails Mr. Thomas OTHERS DEFEND HIM (Received May 8, 5.5 p.m.) Loudon, May 8. The Press has not hesitated to recognise the prominence of New s Zealand in the House of Commons debate, in which Sir Herbert Samuel hotly attacked the Government’s refusal of her “offer” as a possible turning-point in Imperial policy. The “News-Chronicle's” Parliamentary correspondent declares that the Ministry had a thoroughly uncomfortable time, Sir Herbert Samuel's slashing attack touching sore spots. Nobody looked more uncomfortable than Mr. J. 11. Thomas. Secretary for the Dominions. who worked hard to give the impression that he had really done New Zealand a kindness by demonstrating that her demand for free trade must be resultless. Tills attempt to question the genuineness of the Dominion’s inquiry neither pleased nor impressed the House. It was characterised by Sir Percy Harris as a most unfortunate suggestion. The "News-Chronicle,” continuing the attack in a leader, asserts that the debate emphasised the dilemma in which contradictory policies have involved the Government. It had long been obvious that the Ottawa policy cannot be reconciled with economic nationalism. and now they have collided. The Government, before Mr. W. Elliot, Minister of Agriculture, embarked on his perilous adventure of reorganising agriculture by creating an artificial scarcity, made a bargain with the Dominions which was now hung like the Ancient Mariner's albatross round its neck. The debate disclosed that the Government was abandoning its loudly-professed enthusiasm for Empire trade. "Mr. Thomas’s was easily the worst possible defence of a difficult position,” it adds. “It was obviously the way to offend New Zealand to suggest that the inquiry was insincere. Even if the defence had been as good as it was bad, it would not have been worth that price. New Zealand's offer was a splendid opportunity to begin forming a group of all nat ions willing to exchange goods on a low tariff or no-tariff basis. The deplorable aspect of the Government’s refusal was Its rejection of the most promising chance yet presented for a move toward a sounder world economy.” "The Times" considers that the New

Zealand House of Commons episode was disproportionately magnified. It adds: It was merely a peg on which Sir Herbert Samuel hung a long free trade speech. It was a poor peg for the purpose, since the New Zealand producers’ chief desire is to eliminate foreign competition and not see competition thrown open to the world. Moreover, as Mr. Thomas showed, there was little to justify the reproaches of the Government as too nationalistic or unduly tender toward foreign trade. Mr. Forbes’s own statement showed that New Zealand Ministers never doubted the British attitude, since both tlie Ottawa and Economic Conferences demonstrated that Britain could not give one Dominion what she denied others. Mr. Thomas convincingly answered those desirous of returning to a free trade that never was or advancing to a so-called free trade that never will be. A steady market can be achieved only by the co-operation of producers, which all Governments should aim to promote.

The “Daily Telegraph” says that Mr. Thomas had a convincing case. It was agreed at Ottawa that each Government's first duty was to its own producers, its second to Empire producers, and its third to the foreigner. Great Britain had kept the spirit and letter of the bond, and had increased the proportion of imports from the Dominions to a larger extent than they had increased their imports from her. ONLY IF UNAVOIDABLE Australia and Quotas SEARCH FOR NEW MARKETS (Received May 8, 9.20 p.m.) Adelaide, May 8. A statement of policy on Australia’s attitude on restriction of exports was made by the'Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, at Adelaide Town Hall to-day: He said that Australia would not adopt a policy of limitation of exports unless it was unavoidable, the initiative resting on the United Kingdom. He warned foreign countries that if they did not buy freely from Australia they could not expect a continuance of Australia’s custom. So far no proposal had been made by the British Government regarding restriction. The best way to avoid regulation of exports was to expand foreign markets. Australia was now seeking expansion of foreign markets and foreign trade. The executive committee of the Australian Dairy Produce Export Board announced that the 20 per cent, restriction on the gradings of butter for export to the British market would be discontinued after June 1. Shipments of butter withheld at that date would be spread over a short, period. DOMINION INQUIRY Mr. Forbes Interviewed The fact that tlie British Government had made it clear that it could not make separate agreements with individual Dominions was made clear by the Prime Minister. Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, when invited last evening to . comment on the reply of the Dominions Secretary, Mr. J. H. Thomas, to the debate in the House of Commons. The circumstances leading up to the exchange of cablegrams between the New Zealand and British Governments were recalled by Mr, Forbes. The contents of these cablegrams .cere made public at the dairying conference in Wellington on March 13. Mr. Forbes said a ction of the producers had freely stated that if New Zealand were to offer practically a free trade tariff to Great Britain. New Zealand would be assured of free entry of her produce to the British market. Although the Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, and himself had declared that the problem was confined to the question of marketing of our primary produce and that it was not one of ''tide. their statements were not accepted. In view of the persistent belief that if New Zealand undertook a drastic reduction or removal of the tariff on British goods the British Government would guarantee the continuance of unrestricted entry for New Zealand produce, the British Government had been asked to indicate its attitude toward the suggestion. The British authorities had replied that the question of trr.de was entirely apart from that of regulation of imports, and had made it clear that no separate agreement could be made with any one Dominion. What was done for one would have to be done for the others.