EMPIRE EXPORTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 2 April 1938, Page 7

EMPIRE EXPORTS

REGULATION PLAN OPPOSED BY NEW ZEALAND

I POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISE I ! [United Press Association-By Electric j Telegraph—Copy right 1 SYDNEY. Ist April. The trend of discussion at the British Empire Producers’ Conference to-day again indicated the possibility of the British delegation’s proposals for producercontrol in the regulation of exports reaching the United Kingdom market forming the basis of a compromise. Mr Cleveland Fyfe. one of (he British delegates, emphasised that with the rejection of the British proposals there would be no alternative constructive ; proposal and that under the British plan there was no intention of imposing 1 | levies. Mr T. C. Brash (New Zealand) said he refused to believe that the British Government and the British people were asking them to accept a position . j under which they were to be led to re- * I strictions or the imposition of levies. Mr A. J. Murdoch and Mr H. Mcllsop (New Zealand) were among the I speakers. Mr Mellsop said the New j Zealand Farmers’ Union thirty-eight I years ago had fought for the freest ! trade with the United Kingdom. He ; added that if restrictions were imposed, i then it must be done by the British! Government. The British delegation’s ; proposals in their present form could: ! not be accepted by the New Zealand | representatives. I The conference was adjourned, i The president of the New Zealand Farmers' Union. Mr W. W. Mulhol- i -land, interviewed to-night by the New; 'Zealand Press Association, said Sir! Reginald Dorman-Smith’s proposals j seemed to most of the Dominion dele- | gates to embody or envisage greater re- j strictions on Dominion produce. The British delegates claimed that • their object was to get the Empire i producers to come together to form an | organisation or organisations which i would regulate or control the market- j ing of their produce. The delegates j did not doubt the honesty of purpose of j their British colleagues, but the resolution was clearly open to the inter- ■ pretation that the producers themselves 1 had invited or had approved quantitative restriction. Mr Mulholland added that the re- 1 solution or suggested amendments had not been put to the conference, neither bad they fc«n withdrawn. The debate had ended with an agreement that the leaders of the various delegations would come together in committee to see whether it Was possible to reconcile all the views and then evolve satisfactory or positive action. Mr Mulholland expressed the opinj ‘on that there was no need for any producer to be unduly alarmed as the result of what was happening at the j conference. The delegates had agreed that restrictions were out of the question and. so far as New Zealand was concerned, the producers would not! allow themselves to be fettered.