THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1939 OBSTINACY OR DESPAIR?

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23504, 15 November 1939, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1939 OBSTINACY OR DESPAIR?

Whatever may be said about the specific brand of economic planning that is at present being forced on New Zealand, iti must be admitted that the chief economic planner, Mr. Nash, at least has the f courage of his convictions. Hardly a day passes without some new organisation or group adding its voice to the chorus of protests occasioned by Government control of the Dominion's entire trading system. Exporters and importers) wholesalers and retailers have all been - roused to expressions of indignation; shop assistants, apprehensive of their future employment, are raising doubts as to the wisdom of the Government's policy, reflected in empty shelves and dissatisfied customers ; and signs are not lacking that the discontent of the consuming public is rapidly becoming articulate. In spite of all this, Mr. Nash continues to defend his policy of trade control, insisting that the supply of essential goods is being maintained and that the people of the Dominion are being kept in employment. Any Minister who thus places his own views in front of such a formidable expression of public opinion must have the courage of his convictions, but there is a point beyond which self-confidence of this nature springs either from desperation or from sheer obstinacy. Mr. Nash has aroused the hostility of traders from one end of New Zealand to the other, but his continued indifference in the face of rapidly spreading resentment indicates that his self-confidence has over-reached itself. Either commer-

cial chaos has developed to such an extent that the Government does not know how to deal with it, or else Mr. Nasli is determined to force his own ideas down the throats of the people, regardless of results. If the Government's scheme is all that Mr. Nash claims it to be, why does he himself monopolise nightly a service owned by all the people in order to put forward with considerable skill and cunning his own side of the story 1 Why does he deny access to the microphone to those whose interests are threatened by his policy? The answer is probably to be found :in the Minister's manifest belief in his own infallibility—a belief amazingly reflected in his broadcast on Monday night. This address took the form of a defence of the policy of "import selection" —an example of verbal camouflage to which he is greatly attached — but if the scheme were as rational, effective and praiseworthy as he pictured it the need for defending it would not arise. Mr. Nash admits that in the last two years New Zealand has imported £20,000,000 worth of goods, more than should have been brought into the country out of current exports. He does not accept responsibility in this* matter, but the responsibility is his and he cannot dodge it. However, all that is past, and it is impossible to disagree with the Minister when he stresses the necessity of controlling imports—in other words, of making, sure that in future we live within our income. Under existing conditions, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that the supply of all essential goods, raw materials and farm requirements is being maintained. And yet that is Mr. Nash's argument. Surely importers, manufacturers and shopkeepers are competent to judge what is happening to their own businesses, but Mr.

Nash, from the magnificent isolation of a Ministerial office, advises them to disregard facts and to stake their whole existence on his own discredited theories. Evidence abounds to show that the whole trading position in New Zealand is rapidly becoming intolerable. Many classes of goods normally imported are now prohibited, while in the case of permitted goods,

delays in making available the

| necessary foreign exchange have meant that orders have been placed only after prices have risen. The result is an all-round shortage and local factories cannot supply the quantity or variety of goods that have been' excluded. It cannot be pretended that this state of affairs is satisfactory. Even Mr. Nash admits that "the sooner we get back to something like, normal, the better it will be for all concerned." But the trouble is that he is making no real effort to get back to normal. Any suggestions of internal reorganisation he dismisses on the grounds that the Government is being asked to "cut down public works and retrench generally, repeating the procedure of past years." Admittedly there have been times when

retrenchment was necessary but they have invariably occurred when prices for our exports were below normal. Export prices to-day are reasonably high and what is needed is not so much retrenchment as a definite insistence on productive work. There is no evidence of the transfer of men from expensive and unproductive public works to useful occupations in manufacturing industries. Moreover, in Mr. Nash's own words, "there is no reason to assume that the value of exports this year will exceed the value of those of last

year." Prices are up but values are expected to remain stationary ; this can only mean an anticipated decline in the volume of primary production. No matter how adroitly

he argues, Mr. Nash cannot demonstrate that his present policy is benefiting New Zealand. Production is the acid test and, as production for export is necessary to pay for our imports, it is obvious that our national output from both farm and factory is insufficient for our needs.

Until this aspect is squarely faced and until Mr. Nash is prepared to

take counsel with those who have a first-hand knowledge of the problems involved, there can be little real hope for the future.