TRADE BALANCE

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 30, 5 February 1935, Page 11

TRADE BALANCE

BRITAIN AND N.Z

REPLY TO MINISTER

ACCURACY OF FIGURES

Replying to the Minister of Industries, and Commerce (the Hon. R. Masters)', Mr. G. H. Scott made the following statement to "The Post" today with reference* to the question of the trade balance between Britain and New Zealand:— '

In your issue of February 2 the Hon. Mr. Masters, Minister of. Industries and Commerce, in his reply to my letter of February 1, again attempts but fails to explain away or excuse the one-sided trade figures between the United Kingdom and this Dominion. Mr. Masters, in a column and a half of your space, has gone' to great lengths and many words in an effort to belittle the writer and discount the figures I quoted. The result is neither creditable to the Minister nor convincing to your' readers. The figures I quoted are incapable of being explained away. They are not my figures, but those issued by. the Board of Trade, London." They are not in any sense or any degree twisted or juggled. The Board of Trade returns are accepted world over as the basis for trade reviews. They-are unpalatable alike to your readers and to the Minister, but they contain truths which it would be wiser for him to accept, seeing they cannot be either denied or explained away.. They constitute. the picture presented to commercial England and the world in general, and it is on these figures that our measure of trade selfishness with the United Kingdom is judged, and. from which, arise many of the influences which adversely affect the sale of our primary products. ' V\ INTEREST PAYMENTS. "The Minister, in. his haste to be insultingly personal, and therefore undignified, overlooked vital points in this matter. I did not consider it necessary as a reminder to , a Cabinet ■' Minister to mention the very obvious fact that interest is provided for out of the proceeds of products exported; and in any case my article was not concerned, with matters which related to New Zealand's internal policy, but evidently it suited the Minister's purposes to camouflage, the position and use interest payments as a smoke.screen. Such a procedure does, not in any sense answer, or cx T plain away the facts' presented in my statement. It is'common knowledge that New Zealand has not defaulted in interest payments, even when imports exceeded the value of exports. If gold be shipped from New Zealand to pay interest at a time when-.im-ports are greater in value than. exports, will Mr. Masters still classify this an import? I challenge the Minister to quote any instance where interest has been included as an import in the records or statistics relating to imports and exports and published by any important authority as a trade record. It is only begging the question to use this point as vital when examining the schedule I attached to my last letter, and merely serves to confirm the weakness of the Minister's reasoning. The Minister is well aware tljat.in normal periods the trade balances in our favour are capable of covering interest on loans payable in London. He either purposely, misses; or refuses to acknowledge the' facts disclosed in my statement of trade figures','namely, that a,trade balance which covers interest, etc., and still leaves a huge, balance cannot possibly be the outcome of a trade which could be classified as reciprocal, nor can it be. justified as indicating a sound.fiscai policy. Ultimately it must react to . this Dominion's disadvantage. • ' ■'.""-.. ,' ;' ' ; ■ . ' FREIGHT. -V. .-..;■ ■ ■ "What purpose does the Minister suggest is served .by adding: this item? Obviously it- is addition to the smoke screen. To add freight would entail that exports: and imports .should be similarly dealt with, the result being an increase in the volume on both sides and no alteration to the measure of reciprocity. In the figures quoted, by me on February 1 all the countries named are given the same basis, namely. London Board of Trade returns expressed in sterling. If, as the Minister suggests, allowance must be made for interest payments, freight, etc., then surely the Minister must allow that similar additions apply equally to all the countries: whose figures are quoted. To make an exception. for New Zealand as the Minister, does and ignore the remainder is- further and rather obvious evidence of bias, and insularity. DENMARK—A "MARKS NEST." "The Minister has made a proud, and extensive parade of a 'mare's nest.' I had no ulterior motives in regard to the omission of. Denmark from the list of countries referred to in my last letter. I now, make amends. The figures applying to Denmark alone are at present not available.' The Board: of Trade returns give the figures for Denmark and Faro Island as follows, calculated in sterling:— • . . Percentage of Exports Imports. ' Exports;; to Imports £35,424,454 £11,795,260' 33.2

"Once again the Minister in his haste to infer incorrect motives on my part has overstepped the mark. The position as it now stands, and having added Denmark, is that New Zealand is nineteenth on the list of twenty-one countries. Denmark and Faro Island as shown in the above figures buy from the United Kingdom more in volume than New Zealand, representing 33.2 per cent, of their exports to the United Kingdom against New Zealand's 25.7 per cent, whilst Denmark's sales to the United Kingdom are nearly ,£1,250,000 below the New Zealand .figures. I am completely astonished that Mr. Masters did not examine the Board of. Trade figures before rushing into print and making an unwise imputation in this matter.

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Minister's statements, I have no motives to serve in this matter beyond that of, drawing public attention to aspects of our trade with the United Kingdom, which in the interests of our Dominion should be widely known. It is quite clear from the Minister's attitude to these figures ( and facts that he, realising legislation has in some measure contributed to the position disclosed in the figures I published, prefers that such informaItion should be covered up.

"I regret that the Cabinet Minister should make his attack so personal and so far lacking the dignity generally associated with the office of Cabinet Minister."