GOVERNMENT POLICY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXV, Issue 185, 6 July 1945, Page 3

GOVERNMENT POLICY

starving. The recovery of her overseas trade was vital to the recovery of Britain and the recovery of Britain was vital to the Empire. New Zealand had a part to play in that recovery because New Zealand could never be strong unless Britain also was strong. New Zealand could not help Britain by shutting out British goods, and while there was a great future for manufacturing in New Zealand there also was a great deal we could procure from Britain. Mr Holland . said that New Zealand industry should be developed by freeing it from high taxation and State interference, both of which were preventing expansion. It must be made worthwhile for both the workers and employers to increase their productive effort. His party believed it could increase the efficiency of New Zealand’s industries by from 15 to 50 per cent, by implementing this policy and so increasing our prosperity.

However, our prosperity depended also on the goods we must buy overseas and we could pay for those goods only with our exports. Britain bought 81 per cent, of our exports, and we could not go on indefinitely slamming the door on the fingers of our best customer by our import restriction policy. In 1939 wc were threatened with the imposition of a meat quota by Britain. Only the war avoided the necessity of putting 25,000 tons of meat down the chute at the freezing works. We should remember that lesson and seize the opportunity for expanding the market in Britain which existed today. To do so we must buy freely from Britain. The remedy for New Zealand’s problem lay in exporting more, not in importing less. We had today cons.derahle overseas funds, but not nearly enough to replenish our importers’ shelves. The people of New Zealand did not Want the Alinister of Finance to say what they could buy. Today the door was closed to half of the things Britain wanted to sell to us. PREFERENCE TO BRITAIN.

The Acting-Prime Minister said that no country had done more tor tnc world than Britain had done during the last live or six years. Britain was nou at the end of the first stage of the war. She had lust more of her people than any other Allied nation except Unssia. *he had lost one house out of every three and a half, yet this Britain that had suffered so much was sending a fleet, an air force, and 'land forces to the Pacific. AVus Britain to semi forces 10,000 miles while New Zealand did not send any? AVas it New Zealand’s job to find food alone when the maximum additional labour required for food production was 4000 men? Every man who was taken off a farm would be replaced and no man would be taken until there was another ready to replace him. The Leader of the Opposition had said that those who were here should go to the war before others should be asked to go again. Of 20,000 A grade men in New Zealand JO,OOO were on farms. Did the Leader of the Opposition say They should go? How did the Leader of the Opposition say that those who had not gone should he compelled to go and then say that we should have a volunteer force? If New Zealand had a volunteer force at this stage of the war were all the men who find been compulsorily sent away to he brought hack or was New Zealand to have a force composed of two types? Air Nash said everyone realised that Britain would face difficulties in regaining her trade after tier wartime sneri- i (ices. However, New Zealand had , always given Britain the utmost pos- I siblo trade preference. In an agreement | at the time import selection was intro- i cl need we undertook to allocate to Blit- I ain the maximum trade possible, and that had been adhered to. Nobody could get a license to import goods from countries other than Britain if 1 those goods were available from Britain | at a comparable price, but importers i could always transfer to Britain | licenses to import goods formerly [ brought here from other countries. Ho : knew of no greater preference for Britain than that. If the Leader of the

Opposition or anybody else could tell him how we could give greater preference to Britain lie would like to hear of it, added Mr Nash. “NOT INFALLIBLE.” The Government was doing everything in Hie mroctioii of expanding trade w,tb I Britain consistent with the maintenance of the sound economics of this country. If it opened the door and allowed local industries to be destroyed would that be in the interests of sound economic conditions? Would anyone suggest that the Government, could have altered the conditions that existed m New Zealand during the years of war? In Biitain they were saying tnere must be export control, that the total imports had to 'be limited by the money available to buy them. That was what the Labour Government had always said. They would issue licenses to the full extent of the money available and would give the fullest preference to goods nianmacluied in Britain. They would also limit licenses to those things of greatest economic importance to the country, 'they bad funds in London for making purchases from Britain, but surely everyone would agree that, preference should be given to such things as electrical equipment, replacement of obsolete plant, etc., and if there was to be preference then there must bo an import licensing policy. Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford) : Your judgment isn’t infallible. That is tile trouble.

Mr Nash said he agreed he was not infallible, but selection did not depend on Bis judgment alone. Mr Nash said that he was satisfied that the only satisfactory way of managing the economics of the country was inside tho framework of import control.

Referring to claims that taxation should bo reduced. Mr Nash said tho net return to the people after all taxation had been paid was millions more tlijin it had ever been before. The workers bad more and the prolit-making section bad a gieater return than ever before.

Mr W. Sullivan (Nat., Bay of Plenty) Gross profits ? Mr Nash: Y<?s and also net profits.

Mr Nash added that (lie Government wou.d give up some of its taxation when it was no longer required, blit when that would be would have to bo considered. Discus ing the relation of private and public enterprise lie said another slump was inevitable under unrestricted private enterprise which meant competition between countries instead of co-operation. He believed it was quite possible to implement, a policy of full employment and the fam ly inconie legislation to be introduced ibis session would guarantee a reasonable income to all who were willing to work. Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat,., Waikato): What will you do with the people who will not work '!

Mr Nash: If they will not work they will not get the benefits. Mr Nash said the Government as announced was taking steps to acquire internal airways and he thought nobody would argue against that. Opposition voices: We do. Mr Nash said that Government control of airways was necessary for- the proper coordination of the Dominion's transport system, in this we would be following the example of South Africa where the airways were all publicly owned and Canada where they were largely under State ccnt.iol. If as the years went by certain enterprises developed along monopoly linos lie thought they should be taken over by the Stale. We could not. afford to bo held up to ransom by private people or companies. An Opposition interjector: Now we know wliy you are building up monopolies. Mr Nash said if a particular task could host be carried out by State enterprise then the State would do it. but where private enterprise could show initiative and eou.d show Hint it could do a job better it would not only be allowed to do so by the Government, it would also he encouraged.

An Opposition voice: Who determines that? Your back benchers?

Mr Nash : The policy of our back benchers is the same as that of our front benchers.

Mr Nash, in conclusion, affirmed that Now Zealand was not locking out one pennyworth of goods which we coukt get from Britain and which .we could afford to pay foi. The House rose at 10.15 until 10.30 tomorrow.

MR HOLLAND’S CRITICISM. ALL MUST WORK FOR PEACE. ' (Press Assn.) WELLINGTON, July 0. Stating that what lie and the rnem--I><?r for Tauranga (Mr Doidge) hail seen while they were overseas had convinced them that all legislators must work for peace in the future, the Leader of the Opposition (Air Holland) when he spoke in the Address-in-Iteply debate in the House of Representatives tonight appealed ior greater co-operation in the luture. In the past, lie said, it had been the custom not to see any good in the other follow if ho happened to be on the other side, but he wanted to express appreciation of what Mr Eraser had done for Now Zealand by representing this country at the San Francisco Conference and to welcome him back to the Dominion. Ho was sure all members would look forward to hearing Mr Fraser’s report on thw conference. Before the debate commenced the Acting-Prime Minister (Mr Nash) announced that as a number of members would have to return to their homes at the week-end he would ask members to agree to an adjournment tomorrow until Wednesday afternoon. Mr Holland said the mover and seeonder of the Address-in-Repl.v had tried to switch the debate on to the Government’s proposal to take over the privately-owned shares in the Bank of New Zealand, hut they would not succeed, as the members of the Opposition would reserve what they hud to say about that until the Government’smeasure came before the House. In the meantime the other side was not going to learn their views. RUSSIA’S PART.

Referring to his trip overseas, All Holland said that what he and Mr Doidge had seen had convinced them that legislators, regardless of political affiliations, should work ior peace in the future. If the nations agree to pull together and try to understand each other war could he avoided. The first task of all legislators was to ensure that there would he no more war. Stressing the need for eo-operation by the United Nations, Mr Holland said Russia was a great problem to us, not because she was any worse nr better than other nations, but because we did not understand her. Russia was suspicious of us because of her past experiences, particularly in the League of Nations, and the Russians felt that their future security wouid depend primarily on Russian strength. As it was imperative for us to understand Russia it. was a pity that, having a New Zealand Minister in Moscow, wo knew so little of his activities. While he was no doubt doing a good job it was desirable that t)ic public, whose money was being spent on maintaining our Aloscow Legation, should be told more of what he was doing. Mr Holland said lie had not seen a single report on the work of our Minister in Moscow.

An overwhelming need for world peace was a strong British Empire, added the Loader of the Opposition. He thought it would strengthen Empire ties if our New Zealand Division were taken to Britain and acclaimed as they undoubtedly would ho before being brought home. Such a move would probably quicken their ultimate return to the Dominion, for if they were left in Europe garrison duty would lie found for them, and our troops were not cut out for garrison troops.

There could be no strong British Empire unless Britain as the heart of the Empire recovered her trade and the components of the Empire must ensure Britain her legitimate rights of trade. World peace depended, too, on the strong friendship of the British Empire with other English-speak-ing countries, particularly the United States, and Mr Holland said his meeting with l’resident Truman gave him the impression that the President would he a splendid ally of the British peoples. DIVISION’S FUTURE.

A question they must consider was the future of the New Zealand Division, Mr Holland said. New Zealand’s war effort was not confined to actual combat duties. It also included production, and while he was overseas he had made extensive inquiries about what was thought of the part New Zealand should play in the war against Japan. There was a great shortage of food in Britain, Europe was starving, America had cut her food shipments to Britain, and Australia had had production reduced by drought. The question then was: Should New Zealand send troops against Japan or use them in other ways? Could New Zealand go on maintaining a Division or could we employ the men to greater advantage? “The information we got overseas was that New Zealand’s war effort could best he expressed in food production so that the people of Britain and of starving Europe could have more food.” He had talked to a senior Vice-Admiral of the United States Navy and he had said that the most important thing New Zealand could do was to produce food for the American forces. It was not a question of pulling‘out of the war. The question was: 'Were we being most effective by remaining in the field ? If a small land force was wanted in the Pacific,

it should he composed of men who had not yet served. He had been informed that when the Division was re-formed, the men who had served in the Pacific were to receive only part of the credit for the time spent there. If that was so it was not right and should be collected.

“My view is that we should bring the ’Division home, hut should maintain an air force and a naval force,”

Mr Holland said. He added he was sure that Canada’s example of calling for volunteers for the Pacific

would have fruitful results if tried

here. He had spoken to many New Zealand airmen who wanted to fipjlit the Japanese because they had not had an opportunity to fight the Hermans. _ He asked the Government to reconsider the culling up of 18 and 19-year-olds as these could not he sent overseas for two or three years, and it was not fair to take them from their trades for serv ice in New Zealand. The Acting-Prime Minister had asked what influence would New Zealand have at the peace table if she took no part in the Pacific war. Ho would ask the Acting-Prime Minister what influence would Russia have. Would he say that Russia would not have influence because she did not take pare in the war against Japan? If he would not say that about Russia, why should he say it about New Zealand? Would the Government go on maintaining a Division in the Pacific merely to make sure of a seat at the peace table? To say that we would not have a seat because we did not take part in active warfare was just bunkum. FREEDOM FOR INDUSTRY. Referring again to Britain’s trade, Mr Holland recalled that for a year Britain had stood alone against Germany and Italy and had 'sold her overseas investments to fight for freedom. Those investments were necessary to Britain to buy the food from overseas required to keep her people from