NEW ZEALAND AND BRITISH TRADE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 15 February 1933, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND AND BRITISH TRADE

EFFECT OF OTTAWA AGREEMENTS VIEWS OF MR. L. A. EDWARDS Various matters relating to Now Zealand’s trade with Great Britain, and references to trading conditions generally, are contained in the report for 1932 of Mr L. Ashcroft Edwards, president of the United Kingdom Manufacturers’ and New Zealand Representatives’ Association.

As to general conditions, Mr Edwards stated that it is the duty of every citizen, apart from his particular interests, to study the causes underlying economic perplexities and to the best of his ability arrive at a solution. The capitalistic system, under which all the great nations of the world operate, is one that lias evolved and in lus opinion could not possibly continue to exist if it did not, generally speaking, satisfactorily fulfil their needs. He did not assert that the system was perfect, nor could lie conceive a perfect system, but it was tho only system that had stood tho test of -time; it was practical as opposed to the purely theoretical. The danger in these days of democratic government was that would-be mechanics were interfering with the cogs and throwing the machinism out of gear. An attempt to socialise capitalism could only result in chaos. Credit was the life’s blood of the system, yet it was national and individual credit a, which the would-be mechanics were aiming their shattering hammer strokes. Admittedly confidence should- be restored, but it was confidence which the politicians were destroying. The purchasing power of the masses could be restored only when general confidence was sufficiently restored to assure the profitable investment of frozen capital-

TRADE WITHIN THE EMPIRE “The Ottawa Conference,” Mr Edwards states, “was a _ great bid for freedom of trade within the Empire hnd greater international reciprocity. It is far too early to feel the benefits which will accrue. As far as New. Zealand is concerned, the most important resolution was the agreement arrived at to restrict protective measures to such of New Zealand’s industries as were suitable to our present economic, development. This sets in motion a movement this Association has ardently advocated for years past, and I am firmly convinced will, if faithfully earned out, reduce our overhead costs and induce a greater and profitable flow of trade to the ultimate benefit of New Zealand —farmer, commercial man, and industrialist. I must impress upon you that so far we have gained only the right to be heard before a Tariff Commission yet to be constituted. Victory can only be obtained by the presentation by us of a case which is economically sound and overwhelmingly convincing. You readily realise that the conduct of such a huge case is quite beyond the resources of tiiis Association, and I have written to the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers requesting their financial assistance. Upon an adequate reduction in the New Zealand tariff depends the future in New Zealand of the United Kingdom manufacturers.”

“PLAYING AT BEING A NATION”

“New Zealand can have little, influence upon the economic conditions ruling the world, hut it has much to do in setting its own affairs in order.” Mr Edwards states in another part of the report. “It is apparent that we ipust accustom ourselves to a permanently lower level in world’s prices, and therefore it is imperative that much top hamper must be cut away if the ship of State is to weather the storm successfully. Is it not time we faced the conclusion that one and a half million of people can no longer afford the luxury of playing at being a nation? “Some advocate that New Zealand should seek new markets in the East, but I suggest that New Zealand, with its high production costs, is ill equipped to cater for the wants of individuals having extremely low purchasing power. Furthermore, do we realise that we must accept the manufactured goods of such countries in return for our exports, such goods being produced with wages equal to approximately 10s a week and working weeks of 57 hours? Is it not wiser at present to cultivate strenuously the enormous and valuable markets of the United Kingdom?”