TRADE TREATIES

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 117, 13 November 1935, Page 10

TRADE TREATIES

SECRET NEGOTIATION

POSITION IN AUSTRALIA

;. It is evident from the attitude of p Federal Ministers that the system of s secretly negotiating with overseas 1 countries for trade treaties, and callJ ing upon Parliament, in a more or j less formal way, to ratify the treaties - after the arrangements have been com- ' pleted, will be continued while the ' present Australian Government is in power, says the Melbourne "Age."' In i political and industrial circles a lead- • ing article in "The Age" on the sub- ; ject of secret irade treaties—in particular, the treaties negotiated overseas by Sir H. Gullett, and shortly to be placed before Parliament —was read with considerable interest and approval. Federal Ministers who were in Melbourne were not inclined to discuss the subject. The Minister of Customs (Mr. White) said the matter was one for the Minister of External Affairs to deal with. That Minister (Sir C. Pearce) said that if • ''The Age" article meant anything, it meant that Parliament should negotiate treaties. How. could that be done? Any treaty negotiated by Sir H. Gullett on.behalf of the Government, would have to be ratified by Parliament before it could come into operation. ■ • Asked if the Government would insist on the treaties being ratified — whether Parliament would be told that the Government would stand or j fall by the arrangement, as was done in the case of the Ottawa Agreement —Sir G. Pearce replied that as part of its policy the Government certainly would demand acceptance of it. MISUNDERSTANDING. Senator Pearce has in the foregoing statement revealed (1) a complete misunderstanding of the criticism directed at the Ministry's method of framing secret trade treaties, and (2) an unqualified ' assertion of the Ministry's determination to force the proposed treaties through Parliament by the same methods and tactics as were adopted in the case of the Ottawa Agreement. The suggestion that the Dnly alternative to the "secretly frame an agreement and force your will on Parliament policy," is to ask Parliament itself to frame agreements, is a childish attempt to evade the issue. Critics of the Ministerial method contend that, no agreement of any kind should be made overseas by any Minister; that no proposals should reach agreement form until they have been discussed in Australia with all. local interests affected, just as British Ministers did in relation to the agreement between their own industrialists and the international steel cartel; and that Parliament should have arriple time for and freedom from "whip tyranny" when debating all aspects of any draft treaty or agreement submitted to it. The utmost power which should be exercised by any itinerant Minister in Europe should be that of a collector of recommendations, which should be thoroughly discussed with Australian manufacturers and producers in the Commonwealth before even reaching the form of an agreement for submission to a free Parliament. The presentation to Parliament of an fait accompli, which members must accept without alteration or amendment, reduces both Houses to the status of a registration bureau.