N.Z. TRADE AGREEMENT

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1932, Page 5

N.Z. TRADE AGREEMENT

WITH CANADA. Latter Has the Best of it LITTLE GAIN FOR N:Z. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) May 3. New Zealand’s trade agreement with Canada was discussed in the House today, when urgency was accorded all stages of the Trade Agreement Ratification Bill. Mr Downie Stewart, moving the second reading, said that general satisfaction with the terms of the treaty had been expressed by New Zealand manufacturers and others concerned. He had waited for criticism since the terms of the treaty were announced, but there had been only one objection in a large number of letters that he had received, and it- would be shown that this solitary exception was without foundation. Manufacturer? stated that it would enable them to develop in a way which would have been impossible previously, and that the agreement would give new life to some of them. The difficulty of making a tiade agreement between this Dominion and Canada was greater than the conclusion of a treaty between Canada and Australia. Australia could provide certain items very much required in Canada, notably dried fruits and wines; but New Zealand had no such products which she could use for bargaining purposes. New Zealand’s greatest trouble was to find articles which Canada wanted on any large scale. Butter had, in the past, been this Dominion’s largest single item of export to Canada, and New Zealand exporters had stated they would be satisfied if they had to pay the same duty as Australia, namely, five «*ents per lb. This concession had been secured. While this .lower duty might not be of immediate advantage, it might be of substantial benefit in the future. Mr Holland said that there was little to gain or to lose under this treaty. He asked if, in view of the existing figures, the Minister had any hope of New Zealand ever getting a foothold in Canada for its butter. The production of butter was just as natural to Canada as it was to New Zealand. The butter industry was bound to be fully developed 'fluring tho next few years.

“I cannot see how the Minister can hope to get back what was a passing phase of international'trade, ” continued Mr Holland, after giving the figures dealing with Canada’s export trade of dairy produce and New Zealand's butter trade with Canada. “It

is quite clear that our former trade with Canada was not a permanent relationship. Canada will be just as keen in the days of the future to build up its dairying industry as wo are in New Zealand. I cannot see that out of this arrangement with Canada will come any great improvement in our exports of butter to that country. Ail of the facts seem to be against it. What was needed was not tariffs but definite trading agreement?.” Mr Coates: What do you mean by trading agreements?

Mr Holland said he meant an arrangement whereby New Zealand would have a definite understanding as to the quantity of exportable goods she would send to one country and the quantity of importable goods shci would take in return. They should rid of the idea of any haphazard arrangement, based on tariffs. Up to the present, New Zealand had been a heavy loser in its trading with Canada. They should say to Canada that they were willing to trade, but that it would have to be on a basis of equality. Mr Savage said that a trade agreement was like a plaster on a wooden leg—neither good nor harm. He could not see any greatly increased trade, except a transfer of trade from Britain to Canada. In the final analysis, upon purchasing power of our own people depended the measure of bur home and foreign trade. Mr Hamilton: Does not our foreign trade determine our purchasing power? Mr Savage: No! Mr Hamilton: What does?

Mr Atmore: Good government! Mr Savage: Yes, good government! But I insist that, unless we have got the poorer to purchase, Canada will not purchase from us. Replying to Mr Stewart, Mr Savage said that he agreed with the object of transferring our trade to countries like Canada, but when anyphe claimed that we could expand our trade on our present buying power, he was compelled to say it could not be done. We must increase the purchasing power of our own people, if the volume of our trade were tp expand. Mr Atmore - said that hp was afraid that any increase in our trade with Canada would be registered at the expense, of Britain. He viewed this possibility with some apprehension. He acknowledged, however. that the Treaty would patch up the differences between the sister Dominions which existed for the past two years. Mr F. Langstone said that this was. the greatest “stuffed’’ trade agreement that had ever been placed before’this country, and it appeared as if a* political taxidermist had been at work. Tallow, rabbit skins, peas and such like had been placed on the free list, but the big joke was that we did not send any of these goods to Canada. A microscope would be required to detect our benefits from this agreement. Hon. Mr Stevens, the Canadian Trade Minister, had obviously got the better of the agreement, and when asked to give something, he had agreed to a free entry of items which Canada never received from us. To reduce Canada’s buttpr tariff against us from 8 cents to 5 was purely a gesture, because, if it were free, we would not send any butter to Canada. Substantial concessions, however, had been made to Canada on the goods which she shipped

to this country in great quantities. Canada had got the best of the bargain all round. MINISTER’S REPLY. WELLINGTON, May 3. Replying to the debate on the Trade Agreement Bill, and referring to the criticism that Canada had secured the greater advantages from the agreement, Mr Downie Stewart said he never knew a trade treaty yet which had not been subjected to the same criticism. When a Treaty was arranged between New Zealand and Australia some years ago, it was said New Zealand had been “taken down.” At the "same time, while the Treaty was being ratified in Australia, it was stated that Australia had been “taken down. ” Mr Holland: Some of your colleagues made that charge! Mr Coates: When? Mr Holland: Ten years ago. Mr Stewart: L know it was said in Australia that New Zealand had got ninepence for fourpence. Mr Stewart agreed with Mr Savage’s view that, in considering trade, one had -to take into account not only the balance of trade between the two countries concerned, but always had to remember that trade was three-corner-ed. It had to be remembered that Canada, besides trading direct with us, also bought from people who bought from us. That was notable in the ease of Britain. There must be a balance of goods and services in the long run. The Bill was read the third time and passed.