No Country Does More Than Britain -Nash

Northern Advocate, 6 July 1945, Page 2

No Country Does More Than Britain -Nash

(Soecial) WELLINGTON, This Day Speaking in the debate in the House of Representatives last night after Mr. Holland, the acting-Prime Minister (Hon. W. Nash) said no country had done more for the world than Britain had done during the last five or six years. Britain was now-at the end of the first stage of the war. She had lost more c f her people than any other Allied nation except Russia. She had lost one house out of every three and a-half. Yet this Britain, that had suffered so much, was sending fleet, air force and land forces to the Pacific. Was Britain to send forces 10,000 miles, while New Zealand did not send anvV Was it New Zealand's job to lin'd food alone, when the maximum additional labour require^,for food production was 4000 men? Every man who was taken off a farm wpuld be replaced and no man would be taken until there was another ready to reel,ice him.

The Minister said 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, 10.000 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 be compelled to g'o and then say that New Zealand should have a volunteer force? If New Zealand had a volunteer force at. this stage of the war, were all the men who had been compulsorily sent away to be brought back, or was New Zealand to have a force composed of two types?

Taking Over Of Bank Mr. Nash said the Government’s policy regarding the Bank of New Zealand had been set out in the statement on March 31—namely, the acquisition of the private shares at a fair price; the management of the bank on sound financial principles; the retention of the present managerial staff and the present directors. When it was suggested throughout the country that Government ownership of the bank would threaten the privacy of customers’ accounts it was known by these spreading the suggestion that the Government had given an undertaking that the privacy of accounts would not be violated. There would be no change in this respect from the present law, under which it was possible for the administration, as distinct from the Government, to examine any person's banking account through the Commission of Taxes. That was a necessary administrative safeguard. He believed that people in their own homes should enjoy absolute privacy, with the right to shut their gate or their door to whom they chose, but in business there was no such thing as exclusive privacy, because business transaction inevitably affected the interests of others. The people had had more privacy in their home life in the past ten years than ever previously.

Mr. Nash said everyone realised that Britain would face difficulties in regaining her trade after her wartime sacrifices. However. New Zealand had always given Britain the utmost possible trade preference. In an agreement at the time import selection was introduced New Zealand undertook to allocate to Britain the maximum trade possible, and that had been adhered to.

Only From Britain Nobody could get a licence to import goods from countries other than Britain if those goods were available from Britain at a comparable price, but importers could always transfer to Britain licences to import goods formerly brought here from other countries. He knew of no greater preference for Britain than that.

The Government was doing everything in the direction of expanding trade with Britain consistent with the maintenance of the sound economics of this country, said Mr. Nash. 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 conditions that existed in New Zealand during the years of war?

In Britain they were saying there must be export control, that 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 licences to the full extent of the money available and would give the fullest preference to goods manufactured in Britain. They would also limit licences to those things of greatest economic importance to che country. They had funds in London for making purchases from Britain, but surely everyone would agree that preference should be given, to such things as electrical equipment, the replacement of obsolete plant, etc., and if there was to be preference then there must be an import licensing policy. Mr. W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford:. Your judgment isn't infallible; that is the trouble. Mr. Nash said he agreed he was not infallible, but selection did not depend on his judgment alone. Price of Tyres Replying to criticism of the price of tvres made in New Zealand, the Minister said the price tribunal had fixed the price, allowing the same profit as that made in 1939. lie considered the profit allowed was 100 high. The Government had nut made a profit out of tyres it had sold, and private enterprise ought not to be allowed to make as much profit as it had been doing. A British firm was willing to establish tyre manufacturing in New Zealand. and bn the evidence they should be able to manufacture at: a lower price than what had been charged here. Opposition members: We hope so. Mr. Poison: Why not the price charged in Australia, where they are manufacturing tyres? Mr. Nash said there was an import duly and sales tax on Australian lyres. That: was to help to pay for the war. Mr. Poison: We are not quarrelling with th Mr. Nash said that he was satisfied that the only satisfactory way of managing the economics of the country was inside the framework of import control. Referring to claims that taxation should be reduc'd, Mr. Nash said the net return to tiv people after ail taxation had been paid was millions more than it had ever been before. The workers had more and the profit- making section had a greater return than ever bet urn. Mr. W. Sullivan t Opposition Bay of Plenty): Gross profits. Mr Nash: Yes. and also net profits. Mr. Nash added that the Government would give up seme of its taxation when it was no longer required, but when that would be would have to be considered. Private, Public Enterprise

Discussing the relation of private and public enterprise. Mr. Nash 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 the policy of full employment, ana the ianiily income legislation to be introduced this session would guarantee a reasonable income to all who were willing to work, . Mr. W. S. Goosmart (Opposition—Waikato) : What will you do with people who will not work? Mr. Nash: If they will not work they will not get benefits. Mr. Nash said it as the years went by certain enterprises developed along monopoly lines he thought they should bo taken over by the State. New Zealand could not afford to be held up to ransom bv private people or companies. An Opposition interjector: Now we know whv you are building up monopolies, Mr‘Nash said that If the particular task could best be carried out by State enter*

prise, then the State would do it, but where private enterprise could show initiative and could show thar ii could do a job better it would not only be allowed to do so by the Government, it would be encouraged. An Opposition voice: Who determines that ? Your back-benchers? Mr. Nash: The policy of our backbenchers is the same as that of our frontbenchers. The Minister, in conclusion, affirmed that New Zealand was not locking out cue pennyworth of goods which we could get from Britain and which we could afford to pay for. The House rose at 10.15 p.vrt. until 10.33 a m. tomor row.