The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 30, 1949. RISK FOR N.Z. MANUFACTURES

Grey River Argus, 30 September 1949, Page 4

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, September 30, 1949. RISK FOR N.Z. MANUFACTURES

WHILST- in Britain the ury of Toryism is for import restriction it is in this country quite the contrary. Yet the effect of giving' way to this cry would in either case harm the workers. While 31r Churchill has made an electioneering speech against devaluation, and prated that the Americans arc keeping the British people, the masses of the latter, when it comes to a vote, will support the policy which keeps unemployment away. Import re* gulation certainly has enabled our Government to sustain the highest trade per head in the world, half of the total production being exported. Experience has shown that when our sterling reserves are depleted by excessive importing, the effect is disastrous here and bad on our financial position abroad. Could Britain exercise the same control, her position certainly would be easier. II no controls here existed the accumulation of purchasing power would rapidly drain away the overseas funds, and full employment would be soon at an end. Conservatives overseas fully uphold import control, which is the policy of Canada, South Africa, Britain, France, Sweden, Belgium, India, and some other countries. Bulk purchasing and State-to-State ordering in war-time modified control, whereas to-day licences to import, from Britain have the utmost .priority. History shows that employment cannot be maintained unless industries are protected. As things are, the Dominion can find employment for its increasing town population, which is a problem to ])e. solved only by the development of our own industries. The Labour Government offers the crharest-ciit in. dustrial polcy that New Zealand has ever had. So long as our manufacturers are able to satisfy our market, the Government does not licence the importing of similar goods, and Britain most increasingly aim at a similar policy Ar 3.1 r Graser has declared, tlie c.ttitude of Labour is based not on a belief that Indus-, trial development is simply to be governed by relative costs and prices, but on more fundamental considerations,o such as the imperative need to provide full employment and to make the best possible use of our material resources. The Nationalists, in their anxiety to kill import regulation, are not concerned with the fate of local industries, the leader having declared: “Our altitude is one of uncompromising hostility to import controls”. lie said they were contrary to freedom, while one of his henchmen, Mr W. A. Sheat, M.P., said unrestricted importing “might mean the dosing down of certain local industries, but it should not be necessary to bolster the industries which existed under the condition of war-time shortage by excluding competitive overseas goods”. The Opposition would leave our industries at the mercy of a board with a majority on it antagonistic to manufacturing. The Opposition especially objects to any discrimination among imports in favour of the New Zealand-pro-duced goods, as 31 r Watts, 31. P., has expressly indicated in condemning selection. Abolition of the controls would ruin many of our industries. The Opposition are not in touch with the manufacturers or with their many thousands of employees when they oppose any selection of imports. Their idea of a Board of Trade has been tried out, without any good effect on secondary industry, whilst there is no warranty for the idea that any Board they

set up would not favour importers in the same degree as their Party did before Labour came into power. They talk of a tariff, but it would never prevent local industries being ruined by the dumping of ultra cheap imports designed to collar the market at any price. Our market is small, and for that reason local manufactures must have the guarantee of a certain share, through import selection, or else thev must go out. Finally, the tariff policy of the National Party would turn our main imports into unomploy ment and poverty.