THE LABOUR VIEW

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 97, 21 October 1932, Page 8

THE LABOUR VIEW

OTTAWA AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT MOVED

PROTECTION ISSUE

Strong criticism of the agreements reached at the Ottawa Conference was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) in the House of Representatives today, and he moved an amendment which, sought to modify the agreement in connection with the entry of British manufactured goods. Mr. Holland said he had been struck by the fact that one or two members did not seem to appreciate that all forms of labour contributed to the creation of wealth. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea) seemed to have the idea that the landowner was the only person who created the wealth of the country; apparently he thought that farm, labourers, railway workers, waterside workers, seamen, miners, and all those engaged in producing commodities necessary, for primary production created no"'value;. r ,}vhaitever. Where would the landowner' be" without the transport industry," for instance? It was essential that primary products should be economically marketed, and all who assisted in the marketing helped to create the value of those products. The member for Stratford, Mr. "W. J. Poison, was a past-master of misrepresentation; He had told the Farmers' Conference in Dunedin that he (Mr. Holland) had said that the farmers Tnust work' harder and produce more. He had never used.those words, and he was sure Mr. Poison knew that to be so. "What I have said,"said Mr: Holland, '.'was that, while we can control our internal " markets and prices, we have no control, whate)ver over prices in Britain, and that without definite trade* agreements we can only seek to meet our interest liabilities there by increased production. But I pointed out that even there increased production would be inffective unless we were assured for an economic market fgr the increased output." Mr. Poison had stated that the most important part o.f the agreement had -been recognition.of the principle of a quota for meat, but no quota had been fixed for New Zealand. There was to be a restriction on beef from • Argentine— that was all. ' CENTRAL BANK CONTROL The member for Wellington Suburbs! (Mr. R. "A. Wright) had said he would Bot trust himself to the control of a central bank, and had also stated that he would not trust any Government of which he was a member to carry out these .duties. "I don't suppose," said Mr. Holland, "that anyone would trust a Government of which Mr. "Wright was a member to control a central banking system. The honourable member is apparently imbued with the idea that what was good enough for his grandfather is good enough for him." Mr. Holland said that no one objected to. an ■ inquiry into the existing tariff duties, but the agreement reached at .Ottawa stipulating that these duties should be reduced as speedily as possible to such a level as would place the TJnited Kingdom producer iii the position of a 'domestic competitor was most dangerous. The proposal^ if given full effect to, would destroy the secondary industries of the Dominion. The 'Minister of Lands (the Hon. E. A. Ran? som) had made a statement—and it must be taken that he was speaking for the Government—indicating that all protection would be withdrawn from established industries. That, meant that where an industry was established there was to be free entry of competi-. tive goods from Britain and apparently from other countries. That was a most serious pronouncement from the viewpoint of the manufacturers and workers in the secondary industries. BUTTER AGREEMENT. At the time the agreement was reached at Ottawa on the butter duties, it ■was announced' that the Danish export-, ers were perturbed, but after further consideration.they expressed themselves !as being satisfied that they could easily compete, on the British market with Dominion products. Statements of that character showed that the butter agreement gave - little or no advantage to New Zealand. It had also been, stated in.the London "Times" that an announcement by the Danish Government that it had made all the plans necessary to proceed with the discussion for a trade agreement was warmly welcomed. "The Times" had also pointed out that the Argentine Ambassador was on his way to London with concrete proposals for an agreement mutually advantageous to Britain and the Argentine. . . Mr. Holland - asked what^had been done at Ottawa in the direction of" raising price levels and purchasing.power. If this bedrock question had not been considered, the Conference had been a bigger failure '• than " was generally thought. In spite of the fact that the farmers of New Zealand had made a huge increase in. their output of mutton and lamb, they were not able to market their products at a profit, and unless prices rose they would still be unable to make ends meet. It was abso.lutely essential that the power of the consumer to -buy New Zealand's products should be increased. If the Ottawa agreement had the effect of ■ raising prices in England without raising wages it would mean that there would be a smaller market for the Dominion's products, because the workers of Britain would be debarred from purchasing the commodities New Zealand was offering. "SECRET FORMULA." Mr. Holland asked- what was the meaning of the statement that the reduction of foreign supplies on the British, market had teen based on a secret formula.. He considered that they had a right..to ..know the full text of the agreements, which s had been reached, and added that it should be unnecessary to point out the danger of secret agreements; history had shown that they could have far-reaching effects detrimental to the people as a whole. He also asked if anything had been done to bring about credit and currency reform, without which it •would be impossible to arrange satisfactorily for an increase in purchasing power. In conclusion, Mr. Holland moved:— That, except in so far as the change- tends to destroy the measure of protection accorded by the existing laws to commodities which can be economically produced in New Zealand, and always provided that necessaries which cannot be produced in New Zealand, shall come in duty free, this House approves of the agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom . and His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. The amendment was seconded by Mr" J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton).