THE OTTAWA CONFERENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21600, 22 March 1932, Page 12

THE OTTAWA CONFERENCE

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Keeping in mind the expressed views ot British representatives at the Jast Imperial Conference, and what has been said since then, I am strongly of opinion that New Zealand manufacturers will need to be urgently up and doing if . al ' e 11 oc given away at Ottawa, “with a pound of butter.” Already the dairying industry has appointed, its delegate, Mr Goodfellow, and U has unfortunately- to be recognised tbat those engaged in the primary induS-' tries of our, Dominion- are entirely indifferent—dndeed, it; may be said; even hostile—to our progress in -secondary industry. The Ottawa Conference will'probably result in a sort oLErripire “ Family riamtenance Act,” imposing considerable obligations, and ■ I -am apprehensive 'on whom these obligations-wiJf fail. There are. indeed, indications that they will, fall detrimentally on our development in manufacturing industry and , that we will be asked for concessions highly injurious in that respect, in return for what will probably prove a very unsubstantial advantage to primary production. I have never been able to admit any sense of obligation, financially or commercially, from the Dominion to the Mother Country, ihe latter has just been like the country storekeeper. She has taken our butter and eggs, at her own price, and given us Jier store goods, in return, in, place of cash—making a handsome profit on both ■ sides, Or. to put it another way, wa have been “milking on shares” with the Old Country—we managing the . herd arid doing‘the hard milking work, and she taking the larger share of the cream. The whole trend of .things at present would indicate that, by tariff concessions and manipulations, the , dominions are, to. be asked to put a noose round their necks, so far as their manufacturing industries are concerned. It is, fairly clear that, Britain is bent on keeping the dominions a market for her own manufactures, ami just continuing to take their “ butter and eggs” in return. 1 And the vital point is that only by secondary industry can any country ever prosper and progress Those who talk about New Zealand being a “producing country" talk the veriest nonsense. It is a truism that anv country which remains merely agricultural and pastoral remains fifth-rate, aud never advances. Look at Japan! Barbarous and unknown till she started on an era of manufacturing industry, and now in the front rank. Look at Africa! Long years wholly undeveloped and stationary while pastoral under the Boers, and now yearly, under rapid development of industries, forging ahead. ■ What do we gam if we doubled our agricultural exports to-morrow by another £40.000.000 or £50,000.000? Only that we would take for it another £40,000.000 or £50,000.000 of British and foreign manufactured goods, thereby paying £40,000,000 or £50,000.000 of wages to British or foreign workmen instead of expending them in wages in our own country. To sell, as we do, a pound of wool at sixpence and buy it back ‘ manufactured, as we do, at anything over 10s. whereby the manufacturing country gets -9s 6d. or 19 times our poor sixpence, is not good business. Too long have we had-farmers’, government in-New Zealand, with the bad and mad idea that “New Zealand is a producing country." It is a great reproach to ourselves that our industries have never been stimulated or encouraged. Even the thought or idea of any statesman-like encouragement never seems to have been present, to any of our Governments. It certainly has never been given any active expression. Had a small part of the vast sums that have been spent in assisting agriculture been devoted to secondary industries the country would have been in a better position to-day, and agricultural interests also, as it is a known fact that the home market is always the best. Had some of the millions that have been spent (and partly lost) in advances to workers for houses been devoted to advances to factories for workers there would have been a tangible gain. What is the good of providing a house to a worker and not providing him with a job? Unemployment will always prevail and population dwindle where a country is merely a “ primary producer." With modern inventions loss and less employment is being required in country production. A moderate-sized factory will afford more employment and wages than 500 .farms.

Further, the accepted idea of primary production is in itself false. The man who makes the farmer’s boots or weaves his cornsacks, spins bis binder twine, or builds his mower, is just as - much engaged i" farming as is the farmer. There is no dividing line betwixt any industries, whether the so-called primary or secondary. The eminent trade commissioner who visited Australia and New Zealand some years ago was emphatic in his , advice to ns to push ahead with our manufacturing side of industry. Only by that course, he wisely held, could we increase our population, provide employment, and develop the Dominion. To our manufacturers, and those with

the well-being of the country at heart, I would strongly urge that some action be taken lest at Ottawa our real interests be sacrificed for a mythical advantage on foodstuffs. It was Mr Baldwin, I think, and Mr Thomas who bluntly informed the Dominion delegates at the last conference that where British interests were concerned British interests must come first. The Ottawa Conference will simply be a bargain table, and we must take care that we do not make a very bad bargain for our future. In any case the gain on foodstuffs is going to be very problematical. So far as meat is concerned it is quite evident that British interests in the Argentine are going to nullify that, Mr Ormsby-Gore has stated that he attaches the utmost importance to Britain entering into new tariff and commercial arrangements “ not merely with the dominions, but with countries like the Argentine, the Scandinavian countries, and Holland ’’—which countries are exactly our meat and butter rivals. Inis is all the more reason why we should be careful what concessions we, given in tariffs and preferences. By such we may indeed (apart from the more serious direct blow at our industries) lose as much in Customs duties as we will gain on foodstuffs. —I am, etc., b. i ( .