TRADE WITH U.K.

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 5, 6 July 1939, Page 5

TRADE WITH U.K.

IMPORT RESTRICTION

THE POLICY ASPECT

AN AUCKLAND LETTER

(By Air Mail, from "The Post's" London Representative.) LONDON, June 15. . - A view expressed by Mr. W~. O. Bartlett, president of the Bureau of Importers, Auckland, in a letter to the "Manchester Guardian" that "it would be well for British exporters and workers in their factories to know how complete. the embargo (in. New Zealand) is on British goods," has drawn a reply from Mr. Nash. Mr. Bartlett's letter, said Mr. Nash, "exaggerates the extent and misrepresents the purpose of the New Zealand Government's import regulation policy." Mr. Bartlett wrote: — - "Those engaged ■in the import and distribution business in New Zealand believe that the English commercial community, and the workers themselves, should be acquainted with the position in New Zealand. The New Zealand Labour Government has, since j the announcement of the, import con-, trol regulations, stated that it has been necessary to adopt this course in order to conserve London funds. It would be well for the British exporters and the workers in their factories to know how complete the embargo is on British goods. . . * "The New Zealand representatives of, English exporters know that the attack on their products by the New Zealand Government began some time ago. One of the most glaring examples was the increase in duty on English leather footwear in March, 1938. London funds were then , £25,517,318, equivalent to nearly 40 per cent, of our total annual exports. . „ THE STATE THE LARGEST EMPLOYER. "Shortly after coming into power, the Labour Government announced a huge building programme covering public buildings as well as private homes. The State therefore became the largest employer of labour. The majority of the plans and designs are prepared by Government Departments. Some years ago instructions were issued by the Cabinet, to departmental officials to the effect that no imported j goods were to be used unless absoi lutely necessary. I "When the services of public architects were used, they were instructed that no imported goods were to be included in their specifications. These conditions were laid down by the NewZealand Government as far back as 1936, when our London funds stood at £46,000,000. Nothing but New Zealand timber is permitted in any Government constructional work.

"Roofs must be covered with New Zealand-made tiles or New Zealand, asbestos cement sheets. Baths and basins must be New Zealand made. All wall boards used are> a specified New

Zealand make. No imported taps are permitted. Even New Zealand nails are insisted upon. All doors must be made in New Zealand. About»the only British materials which can be used in the New Zealand Labour Government's public buildings and housing scheme are a little builders' hardware. EXTENSION OF PROHIBITIONS. "Not satisfied with its activities in the building trade, the Government has now decided to prohibit the impbrtation of British manufactured I 'leather footwear, radio receivers, cloth- j ing, carpets, linoleum, motor-cars,' cigarettes, and a host of other goods. English manufacturers of radio receivers will be interested to- know that the New Zealand Labour Party ' informed local assemblers here, long before the drain on London funds, that it was their intention to prohibit imports from Great Britain.

"The importers of British goods,! owing; to the existence of the Ottawa Agreement, have felt that they enjoyed some security when trading j with Great Britain. We contend that when two Governments enter into a solemn agreement covering trade, the | commercial community has the right' to expect the honouring of the agree- j ment by both Governments. In protec- I tion of its exporters the French Government only recently took exception to New Zealand's import control regulations. "Surely the English exporter is justified in asking that the conditions j of the Ottawa Agreement are fulfilled.! Our object in writing you is that we feel that it is now 'up to' the British exporters to take, a strong stand when Mr. Walter Nash is in London. He announced before leaving New Zealand that he intended discussing trade relationship with Great Britain. As 85 per cent, of our produce is' purchased by English workers, surely they have a right to see that we take the products of their labour. | "Remember: . : New Zealand sells to • j. Great Britain ....... £48,898,865 ! New Zealand buys from . Great Britain £26,540,711 I . ■ . s '' ■. ■ ___________ 'Excess of imports by ;. .Great Britain of New Zealand primary pro- : -ducts; ................ £22,358,154 ."British exporters" have a right under the Ottawa Agreement to ask i that they shall rank as domestic competitors on the New Zealand market. Furthermore, .by virtue ' of. her unfavourable trade balance with New Zealand, Britain should insist that no unfair barriers such as the import control regulations \or high Customs tariffs on British-manufactured goods should -prevent her maintaining and even increasing her trade with the Dominion." MR. NASH'S KEF-LY. Mr. Nash replied:— ' "The letter from Mr. W. O. Bart- '■ lett, of Auckland, exaggerates the 'extent and misrepresents the purpose of the New Zealand Government's im- ' port regulation policy. The first fact to bear in mind is that, stimulated by the greatly-improved purchasing ability in-New Zealand in the past few years, imports increased very .rapidly and reached record levels. Imports by years from the United Kingdom were: 1935, £18,519,000; 1936, £22,078,----000; 1937, £28,184,000; 1938, £26,894,000.

"In many lines imports from the United Kingdom doubled and more within a year. In the total in the year 1938 (when world wool values declined) New Zealand's imports fell short of export values by less than £3,000i00$ less than a quarter of the

margin that is required to cover debt, services and other charges. Some contraction in imports was imperative. - ■■•■■.' '':"■•■• ' " '■' " •.'"

"It is true that a reduction in imports might have been brought about by methods other than that which was adopted—a reduction not to the level we would wish to take but to the level that at present we are able to finance. For instance, tariffs might have been; steeply increased, the exchange - rate might have been depreciated, or all money incomes, social services, and the like might have been cut in keeping with past precedents so as to reduce purchasing ability and so to reduce imports. . : SATISFIED WITH METHOD. j "The New Zealand Government preferred to take none of these courses, but instead has had recourse to the method of import licensing. We are satisfied that this method is. most appropriate. Incidentally, it is important to remember the plan adopted ha 3 enabled the Government of New Zea^ land to an increasing extent to divert our import business to the United; Kingdom. Ever since the granting of I licences has been required, this has been our constant objective, and so it will continue. . , . . "I can well understand that those, I whether they be in. New Zealand oc in Great Britain or elsewhere, whose immediate trade lias perforce been reduced below recent levels will be critical. They would wish to see the percent record levels maintained without interruption. So would we, if it were possible. ' • . - '-'.:-■

"We certainly do not want to reduce trade or other relationships with other countries, and least of all with Great Britain. We are not at : all enamoured of isolation or self-sufficiency. We want instead to extend our trade and make it more secure against the disastrous boom-slump fluctuations/that have hitherto been suffered."* >