Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1932. NEW ZEALAND AT OTTAWA

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 118, 20 May 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1932. NEW ZEALAND AT OTTAWA

The low ebb to which the Imperialism of what-once-claimed to be the most Imperially-minded of the Dominions has - been reduced during this time of depression has been painfully illustrated by the attitude adopted by those who profess to represent the farmers towards the Ottawa Conference. The attempt of the New Zealand Farmers' Union to secure special representation. op the Dominion's delegation had plainly neither Imperialism nor patriotism at the back of it, but a frankly sectional movement -was fortunately rendered-innocuous by the manifest unfitness of the candidate with whom it was associated. This glaring blunder was not repeated -by the Dominion executive of th,e New Zealand Farmers' Union at its meeting oh. Wednesday, t\or does it appear to have found any defenders; but this negative praise is about all that can reasonably be given to the proceedings. The principal resolution, as amended on the motion of the chairman by a majority of one, evaded the crucial difficulty, and the discussion showed hardly any better appreciation of political realities than the resolution. Indeed, in regard to the personnel of the delegation, the discussion showed none.at all. We grieve to see that Mr. Lyons is credited, or debited,-, with the remark that Australia is going to the Conference "to, get something.out of it;" The Irish Free State represented by Mr. de Valera will he inspired by the same spirit. ..- It will not be the fault of the Dominion executive of the Farmers'. Union; if-the New Zealand delegation'does not display an equally ardent Imperialism of the same type. With the. first two clauses of the committee's report nobody could reasonably quarrel. , (1) We' recognise that the Ottawa Conference is planned. to strengthen the bonds of Empire by .arranging for a freer exchange of our several exports/ (2) "It is essential- for the welfare of every section of the people'of this Dominion that the conference assist in some way our export industries. "A freer exchange of our several exports" is a good definition of the principal object, or one of the principal objects, of the Ottawa. Conference, and the intimate relation of the welfare of our export, industries to the welfare- of the Dominion as a whole is beyond question. But any process by which we can hope to get help for these industries at Ottawa, must,-as the first clause 'affirms, be areciprocal; process.; We must have something' to offer in exchange for the favours we are already getting from Britain and hope to see enlarged. This obligation was recognised by the committee when it affirmed in the concluding clause of its report that in order to assist the British exporter in return, the -.New Zealand delegation should (offer a reduction in tariffs upon British manufactures. •, ■ In demanding that they should receive a benefit arid that the local manufacturers should bear s the cost, the farmers would obviously be putting themselves in t an invidious posi-. tion, but if that is what they want, and if the reciprocity affirmed in die first clause of the resolution cannot be obtained in any other way, what is the use of blinking the facts? But Mr. W. J. Poison, M.P., president of the union, thought otherwise, and at his instance the last clause of the report was struck out and the following substituted: — * If it is necessary to provide compensating advantage to Great Britain, which slip may require in return, the Now Zealand delegation should be given a free hand .to negotiate either by tariff reductions or such other plan aa may be considered desirable in the interests of the development of the Empire. We have admitted the delicacy of •the farmers' position, but this attempt to pass the responsibility on to others may be shrewd diplomacy, but it is not statesmanship or. common sense. And even as diplomacy it is too thin to be any real value. "In vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.",. The pith of Mr. Poison's argument in support of'his amendment was as follows:— It merely gaye1 the delegation a free hand to do what was necessary in the light.of the knowledge they:might acquire at Ottawa, to build up and develop the British Empire. It did not say what the plan should be. It merely indicated that if there should be tariff re-arrangements they would be acceptable. ... He was taking the ground that all sides should be prepared to mako sacrifices. ■ The farmers were definitely asking for advantages to enable thorn to survive, and the other felloiv might say that if he could not get advantages he could not sur-

vive. He did not vrant to see a "statement that they wanted the other fellow penalised. But if you want to see the other fellow penalised, and he knows it, and what you jure/demanding cannot be obtained ih any other way, it is an insult to his intelligence to pretend that you are indifferent. Mr. Poison believes that he is "taking the ground that all sides should be prepared to make sacrifices," but he is quite mistaken. In this matter neither he nor anybody else asks the farmer to make any sacrifices, and all that he does by his generous concession to the New Zealand delegation 'of "a free hand to do what was necessary in the light of the knowledge they might acquire at Ottawa" is to allow them to decide whether, ■the sacrifices by which /our farmers are to benefit should be borne by our manufacturers or by Great Britain. No New Zealand Minister should be asked to accept such a responsibility, nor, if he is worthy of his position^ will he accept it. Nothing that he might learn at Ottawa would enable him 'to decide what sacrifices our secondary industries are to make for the benefit of the primary ones. That is a question which must be - decided before the delegation leaves New Zealand, and if the result is that we have nothing to offer it would be a disgrace to our Imperialism to send a Minister to Ottawa to battle for a preference which we are not prepared to reciprocate. ... The point was well made by an Auckland delegate, and again the interchange which followed did not show Mr. Poison's Imperialism in a very favourable light. r j Mr. Feisst said he saw vital weaknesses in the amendment, one of which was that it raised a doubt as to tho need for reciprocity. He thought they , would all admit that they owed Great Britain a great deal. So-called preferences we had given were nothing liko those that she had given. Mr. Poison: "Britain has nWer ! given us any preference till the other day." ' Mr. Feisst: "She has taken our produce.'.' I Md Poison : ..<'she has taken every-body*-else's.". . J Without dwelling upon oirr immeasurable obligations to Britain for the protection given by her Navy and her diplomacy, -we may point out to Mr. Poison that even though foreigners have enjoyed the-benefits of1 Britain's open market as freely^s we have, the fact remains fhaf, if she had taxed our goods as heavily^ as we have taxed hers, we should not have been saved from, ruin by her taxing foreign goods at the same rate. But the vital point is that since the beginning of March she has given us a preference of 10 per cent, on a large quantity of our produce,: that to ensure its continuance some reciprocal offer must be made^ and that the Farmers' Union declines the responsibility of suggesting what .form it should take. We should have been glad if the farmers' representatives had been equally discreet on the equally important point of personnel, biit it is at any rate satisfactory that they no longer take any responsibility for the dark horse which' Mr. Fraser, M.P., mistook for Phar Lap. In reply to an inquiry about that candidate, . Mr. Poison aaid that the executive i simply said that Messrs. Forbes and Coates should be included in the" delegation.' v I With the Minister of Finance added, the-'two leaders would have made an | ideal delegation in ordinary times, and when the Executive's suggestion was first made it may possibly have been feasible. But anybody who supports' it now shows that deplorable blindness to'realities of which we have spoken. Great as are the country's needs at Ottawa, its heeds at home are such that the prolonged absence of both leaders,at the same time is not to be thought of. .'