The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 23rd, 1932. COALITION WITHOUT A POLICY.

Grey River Argus, 23 September 1932, Page 4

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 23rd, 1932. COALITION WITHOUT A POLICY.

If the Dominion were depending on the Government for the return of prosperity, it would rely on a broken reed, for the "speech from the Throne” yesterday disclosed the conspicuous absence of any constructive policy to place before Parliament. The refrain of the speech is a reference to what other countries, rather than our own, may do to relieve depression, and there is no evidence of a self-reliant spirit. Particularly is there a failure to indicate any check to the incease of unemployment or any means of restoring the purchasing power of the people. Instead as indicated by the motion of no-confidence in which the failure of the Coalition is aptly summed up by the Opposition, there is to be a continuation of the deflation and lowpay policy, without an endeavour to make a constructive use of the national credit, and so far as Government action goes, the condition of the workers and the unemployed will further deteriorate. whilst traders and others may see their assets depreciated without the semblance of a plan to stop the rot. That the only thing in the speech as to which a claim for constructive policy is made should be land settlement is significant, because the activities in that direction have been (medi. oere. The Coalition has been for so long making promises to farmers that it is no wonder they are now being discounted. There is a certain grim humour in the references made by the speech to one oversea conference after another with the object of reviving hope among the producers, because the history of one international conference after another for a decade has been that of failure rather than success. The Government now harps mainly upon the Ottawa Conference, although the speech does not disclose just those arrangements which New Zealand traders are most anxious to be told about. The indications are that the delegation, in the long run, will find it difficult to put a good eonplex ion upon what it has done. It is true that the arrangements made are- meeting criticism already in Britain, and that it is doubtful if they will become lasting, despite the fact of the Government being for the time being under the domination of tariffites; but apart from this, the British market is not going to prove nearly so capacious as Mr Coates would have the country believe. It is certain that when it comes to raising the prices of foodstuffs to the extent desired, the British public will kick. Then there is the competition among Dominion exporters, as indicated by Australia’s latest report of a greatly increased butter output. Mr Coates has claimed that in the case of meat, New Zealand is to be under no restriction, but Mr David Jones admits that, while a tariff would have ultimtaely been preferable to a quota, New Zealand, as a matter of fact, has accepted it as a principle'that her meat exports to Britain shall be regulated for the future. It is also conceded that the quota gives Britain the right in the future if they so decide to protect their own farmers against the Dominions. They have always had that right Mr J ones states, and Britain made it quite clear at the Conference that their own primary producers had the first claim on their Home markets, and they themselves raised the question of restricted imports from the Dominions. It is pointed out that already the British market is flooded with meat, especially with cheap bacon, imports having grown from eight and a-quarter million hundredweight in 1929 to eleven and one-seventh millions in 1931. Moreover out of the 2,071,000 tons of beef, mutton and lamb consumed in the United Kingdom last year 1,123,000 tons, or 54.22 per cent, was Home killed and 945000 tons, of 45.78 per cent, was imported, 30.35 per|

cent, of the total being supplied from foreign sources. When the total weights of all meats-import-ed into Great Britain are included the proportion is: Empire 24 per cent., foreign 76 pe cent, If therefore the Dominion proportion is going to be augmented to any extent, the vendors must be ready to sell at competitive rates,

or their preferences will never last. To a lesser extent this argument in the final analysis will apply also to our other primary products. Therefore, it is the duty of the people and the administration to study more assiduously all the possibilities of our internal market and therefore of our industrial development. Mr Coates, however, has already acknowledged that an inquiry is to be made by the Government to ascertain whether New Zealand industries receiving protection are being unreasonably aided as against similar industries in Britain, and he says that British manufacturers are to have the right to have their wishes considered whenever New Zealand makes any tariff change. He considers it, moreover, to be desirable that certain of our industries should be deprived of a favourable tariff on the score that .hey lack efficient and economical production. New Zealand manu- ■ facturers, however, have been unanimous in pointing out the intrusion here of quite a new, and ■ indeed dangerous determinant > factor in New Zealand fiscal and economic practice. They note : that Britain appears now to have . claimed and to have secured, a , discretionary power to determine , whether or not any particular new , industry is to be started in the Dominion when, in Britain’s view she could supply these goods more cheaply. That certainly would mean taking away the right of ’ the people to establish their own industries, and it would be eoleulated not only to give away our possibilities of industrial development, but to lead to established industries being extinguished. The question is whether any delegation should give away those rights, or the people themselves, should make the decision on the question. When the duties are removed from British goods as the Government proposes, there must be taxation of the people or of local industry to make up the revenue deficiency but that in itself need not be grumbled at when it is considered that Britain has given a measure of preference on New eZaland products. Reciprocity is a fair thing, and it is reasonable to admit as cheaply as possible any British manufactures that cannot be produced in the Dominion, but the ease is different when it becomes impossible to start any new Dominion industry without the authority of an oversea Government. It is to be hoped therefore, that the ■ Government in the name of a pol- ■ icy of prosperity does not still further worsen the situation by ■ destroying even the prospect of industrial development, because in the coming years that at least as much as primary production must be relied upon for the country’s economic salvation.