EMPIRE MARKETS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22257, 9 May 1934, Page 7

EMPIRE MARKETS

NEW ZEALAND'S INQUIRY A NEGATIVE RESPONSE SIR HERBERT SAMUEL'S VIEWS (United Pr«M Association.) , ■ (By Electrlo Telegraph—Copyright.) i .'-, '"' . .'.' LONDON, May 7. s, In the House of Commons, Sir Herbert Samuel, in moving a reduction in the dominions vote, said that though the New. Zealand • communication did not •mount, to. an. offer, it. was an inquiry that no business man would neglect. The Government's negative . response might be the turning point in the direction of'British policy in relation to the dominions. . The Government's policy in restricting and contracting trade was causing profound concern in Western Canada'and. Western Australia. In the latter place the • people were so gravely concerned .that there was a considerable secession rnoyement to obtain freedom'to jnake their own commercial arrangements. Mr'Lyons had stated that, Australia would 'have to seek, markets, elsewhere. Mr Thomas: Do you .suggest that "the Western Australian . secession movement has been caused by-what has been,.tjone here or in Australia? . : .-. . Sir Herbert Samuel: To a great extent, both. •• ;)'; ' , : ■.'.. Cries of-»"N0,"'■..., ..'.-.

Sir. Herbert .Samuel said that if Australia made the same inquiry • as New Kealand and" received .the same reply It would;' be* exceedingly detrimental 'to- • Western Australia and other parts of the. Commonwealth. The reply sent *o New Zealand naturally was the. result •f. a policy of economic nationalism, which ' the Government vigorously condemned, but energetically pursued. It was Mr Elliot's slap-dash, happy-go-lucky policy which caused rejection of New ' Zealand's suggestion: The Government should welcome every-fEer of a reduction or the abolition of tariffs. Freetrade with New Zealand would .'render the greatest service to the Empire. . THE OTTAWA AGREEMENT. . --.JUSTIFIED BY RESULTS. .; (Brltlib Official Wireless.)RUGBY, May 7. (Received May 8, at 5.5 p.m. a, debate in the House of Commons, on dominion affairs 'to-night/Mr J. JL" Thomas cited figures to show. that despite.the economic depression of the last- few" years every ] dominion affected by the. Ottawa agreement had increased its trade with Britain, and that Britain bad increased ..it* trade ' with thein. / The fact othat while world trade 'hadvgone down trade within' the Empire had; improved , was sufficient. justification .for Ottawa. He said he had .received, abundant evidence of the appreciation-by'the dominions of the way that Britain .wis Conducting her side of the Ottawa, agreements. Referring specially to New Zea■land, he. said, a number of people there had urged upon their Government ..that If all .tariffs, against. British goods were removed Britain would take' everything New,Zealand cared to send;, The New Zealand communication in regard to this was not-taken by the British Government as an .offer; because it ;Was".perfectly obvious that no New Zealand Government could entertain such a position. Mr Thomas pointed out thai 25 per cent. ' ct New Zealand's revenue was from tariffs "and he said it was impossible to ■reconcile the position : whereby ; one dominion would be' given particular preference, against "another in the same commodity.. .''■:•'" ':.' .; • ■":"" . J} . .MR'.THOMAS'S. REPLY. ' ' '. \ : LONDON, May 7. '-'•-. .i-(Received.-May -Bv.at 5.5 p.m.) ; -Replying to Sir;Herbert Samuel, Mr - Thomas said: "If New Zealand made an actual offer of Freetrade Britain would then'be .forced to demand the same treatment;: from Australia .or treat Australian goods differently from New Zealand ... goods. We did not take .New .- inquiry • as an. -offer because we knew perfectly well that no New Zealand Goyf rnment could entertain the proposition for'two minutes. How could, we., give one dominion preference over another in the; same commodity?" '—'.'■ '.-•■ Sir Herbert Samuel's motion was defeated* by 207 to 38. The minority cbn=cisted of Labourites, Samuelite Liberals, and one Conservative. )'X "BRITISH PRESS COMMENT/ / h GENUINENESS OF. INQUIRY. " \ ': '-■ :"' .'■ '-' : LONDON,-May 8 V _ : • (Received May 8, at 5.5 p.m.) ■ The' press has not hesitated to recog.liise the prominence of* New Zealand in the House of Commons debate in which Sir "Herbert Samuel hotly attacked the Government's refusal of her " offer" as the'possible turning point in Imperial policy.. J : The. News-Chronicle's /. parliamentary correspondent declares that the Minis- . try-; 1 had a thoroughly - uncomfortable time, Sir Herbert' Samuel's slashing attack touching sore spots. "Nobody looked more uncomfortable than Mr .Thomas,, who worked hard to give the "impressiiinfthathehad really "done New Zealand a kindness by demonstrating that her demand for Freetrade must be resultless. This attempt to question the genuineness of Dominion's inquiry neither "pleased nor. impressed the House, and it was characterised by Sir Percy Harris as a most .unfortunate suggestion." The News-Chronicle, con- ; tinuing the' attack in a leader, asserts that the debate emphasised the dilemma in which contradictory policies have in- "'' volved the Government. "It has for a time-, been obvious that the Ottawa poliev' is unreconcilable with economic nationalism, and how they have collided. The Government, before Mr Elliot embarked on his perilous adventure of reorganising agriculture by creating an artificial scarcity, made a bargain with : the dominions which is now hung lik« the - Ancient Mariner's albatross round its' neck; • The debate disclosed that the Government . was abandoning its loudly, professed enthusiasm for Empire 'j.trade. Mr Thomas's was-easily the worst possible defence of a difficult position.- It was obviously the way to offend. New Zealand to suggest that her inquiry. Was insincere. Even if the do* fence had been as good as it was bad it. would not have been worth that price. New Zealand's offer was a splendid opportunity to begin forming a group of all nations willing to exchange goods on a low tariff or no tariff basis. A deplorable. aspect of the Government's refusal was the rejection of the. most promising chance yet presented for a move towards sounder world economy." ..,..., The Times considers that the House of Commons episode was disproportionately magnified, and adds: " It was merely a peg on which Sir Herbert Samuel hung a long Freetrade speech. It was a poor peg for the purpose, since the. chief desire of New Zealand producers is to eliminate foreign competition, riot to see competition thrown open to the world. • Moreover, as Mr Thomas showed, there is little to justify the reproaches ■ of the Government* as too nationalistic or unduly tender towards foreign trade. Mr Forbes's own state-

ment showed that New Zealand Ministers never doubted the British attitude since both the Ottawa and Economic conferences demonstrated that Britain could not give one dominion what she denied the others. Mr Thomas convincingly answered those who are desirous of returning to Freetrade that never was or advancing to so-called Freetrade that never will be. A steady market can be achieved only by the cooperation of producers, which all Governments should aim to promote." The Daily Telegraph says: "Mr Thomas had a convincing case. It was agreed at Ottawa that each Government's first duty was to its own producers; secondly, to Empire producers; and, thirdly, to the foreigner. Great Britain- kept the spirit and - letter of the bond and had increased the proportion of her imports from the dominions to a larger extent than they increased their imports from her." AUSTRALIA'S ATTITUDE. STATEMENT BY MR LYONS. ADELAIDE, May 8. . (Received May 8, at 10.30 p.m.) A statement of Australia's attitude <>n the restriction of exports was made by the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons) in Adelaide Town Hall to-day. He said Australia would not adopt a policy of limitation of exports unless it was unavoidable, the initiative resting on th> United Kingdom. r He warned foreign countries that if they did not buy freely from Australia they! could not expect a continuance of Australia's custom. So far. no proposal, had been made by the British Government with regard to restriction. '.'The best way to avoid regulation of exports is to expand foreign markets, and Australia is now seeking expansion of her foreign markets and foreign trade." .. ' ■■ .' ... . '