CONTROLS AND TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 118, 21 May 1945, Page 4

CONTROLS AND TRADE

The difficulty experienced by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Poison) in reconciling certain features of the Government's policy with statements made by leading members of the Government, particularly with reference to our future trading relations with Great Britain, is not surprising. We have no doubt that the , desire of the overwhelming majority of the people of New Zealand is that this country, together with other | Empire countries, should do everything within its power to assist Britain to , overcome its immense problems of reconstruction, problems which have . been created by the sacrifices the [ Mother Country willingly mads to fulfil stupendous war commitments. If Britain's, recovery is to be certain, it must regain its former position in the • markets of the world, and if it is to 'do this it must look very largely to

the Dominions. When he returned recently from a mission abroad, the Minister of Supply (Mr. Sullivan) stated that he had obtained from British Ministers "in specific language" full recognition of New Zealand's unchallengeable right to pursue its own line and establish such industries as it thought fit. But the fact that such an assurance was given cannot be held to absolve New Zealand from the duty, in planning future industrial developments, to give the fullest weight to the needs of Great Britain. Mr. Poison has cox'rectly pointed out that Britain's war sacrifices make it imperative that there should be two-way trade. New Zealand is basically a primary-produc-ing country, and it will look to the British markets to absorb by far the greater part of its output. Obviously, then, we must be prepared to accept in return certain raw materials and manufactured goods from Britain. That is not only a matter of sentiment but of good business. As the Acting Leader of the Opposition has stated, there are certain features of our policy which suggest that, although the need for two-way trade may be accepted in principle, in practice there may be factors operating against it. In 1939, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nash) gave an assurance that New Zealand would not apply import restrictions to establish uneconomic industries in this country to the detriment of British manufacturers. What steps are being taken to give that assurance a practical application? The Government has made it clear that import control is to be a permanent feature of its policy. In the light of experience since the controls were first applied, such a prospect is far from reassuring. There is corisiderabl<s evidence to show that, because of the rigidity of the system of import selection, as administered by an all-power-ful Minister of Customs and his advisers, New Zealand has been deprived of goods which could have been readily obtained from overseas. Also, because of this rigidity, there is a very real danger that New Zealand will continue to be so deprived. Recently the British Board of Trade referred to the "advantage in Australia and New Zealand importers placing post-war orders in the United Kingdom for delivery as soon as the supply position permits," and the Board of Trade added that it seemed reasonably certain that the supply position for some kinds of semi-manufactured raw materials and for many consumer goods ana engineering products would improve fairly rapidly. Under the New Zealand system of import control, however. New Zealand importers have no knowledge, beyond December 31 next, of the nature or quantity of the commodities they will be able to import, and this makes forward ordering almost impossible. If import controls are to continue, then the administration must be efficient in a positive sense. At present it appears to be over-efficient in a negative sense. What is needed is a thorough overhaul of the whole system, with due regard for the effect of the policy on our trading relations with Britain and our responsibilities in the post-war world.