INTER-EMPIRE TRADE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18386, 2 May 1934, Page 5

INTER-EMPIRE TRADE

THE BRITISH POLICY WILLING TO CO-OPERATE MUST PROTECT FARMERS (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) LONDON, May 1. The Daily Telegraph says: “As long ago as December, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Minister of the Dominions, indicated to New Zealand his willingness to consider sympathetically a proposal for the mutual development of trade, pointing out that the British Government had already embarked on a policy involving planned marketing of agricultural products. He had to remind the New Zealand Government in March of the failure of the negotiations for the quantitative regulation of butter imports, due to the reluctance of New Zealand and Australia to co-operate in any general scheme. “The British Government, with the Dominions in that frame of mind, had to turn to other plans for assistance to the British farmer. Mr. J. A. Lyons, the Australian Prime Minister, is now seeking to escapo a similar difficulty for Australia by announcing that the Government will organise the possibilities of other markets. That enterprise deserves success.

“It is not from lack of warm feeling for the Dominions, or failure to recognise the difficulties that the partial loss of any market will impose on them, that the British Government adheres to its present policy. Any arrangement possible outside the sacrifice of our agricultural population will always receive a welcome from Britain.” IMPORT RESTRICTIONS OPPOSED BY AUSTRALIA PREMIER’S STATEMENT SYDNEY, May 1. In the course of a speech at Hurstville, the Federal Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, said: “The Commonwealth Government has always been opposed to the policy of restriction of production and exports, and will not institute the regulation of butter arid meat unless it is absolutely necessary. The Government, however,' saw the virtue of preparing for that necessity, which might arise because of policies of other countries, including the United Kingdom. “I have a feeling that there is a crisis ahead. The Government, is therefore considering, firstly, the best means of organising Australia’s primary industries to meet the position; secondly, a basis for consultation with other countries; thirdly, possibilities of finding other markets in the event of the British market being able to purchase butter and other goods below Australia’s capacity to produce them. The Government is already engaged in the task of bargaining on a wide scale with foreign markets, and will energetically explore every alternative to the acceptance of a policy of restriction or regulation of exports.”

EXPORTS RESTRICTION MR. BRUCE’S EXPLANATION SYDNEY, April 25. The High Commissioner, Mr Bruce, referred to restriction of exports in a speech at a dinner at the Hotel Australia, when he was the guest of a huge assemblage representative of the commercial and industrial interests of New South Wales. Mr Btuce said Australia stood today in an incomparably 'better position than any other in.the world. If Australia would continue a little longer, it would reap a great reward for all that it had done. If that dreadful thing, restriction of some exports, was to come, it was not going to be a case of going back, but of standing still on .a 'peak point, with the possibility that, after another two years—perhaps even sooner, so far as Great Britain was concerned —they ought to be able to enter into new •arrangements with that country, whereby they would be getting an expanding share, in the British market, of the things Australia exported. After all, he added, was that twoyear period going to do Australia any harm. It had gone too far in some directions. Let it try to get its house in order; improve its efficiency; make sure of continuity of supply; get its resources on a sounder and better basis. He had no pessimistic feeling about Australia, whatever was going to happen to the rest of the world.

Mr Bruce said he detested the idea of a country like Australia even thinking of standing still. Australia had only one duty, and that was to go ahead, and fight its way into the markets of the world with every product i‘ could produce. To stand still was contrary to every Australian instinct; But, at the same time, was it not better to look the facts in the face 1 ? The markets Australia could sell in were limited, and when it was faced with a situation like that, it had to revise some of its old thoughts. Assuming that it had to face a period of “stand still,” it could not, for one second, abandon its definite objective—to obtain a maximum production and fight its way into the markets of the world. There was the fact that, at the end of the “stand still” period, when freedom was resumed to Britain, she was a great market, for all agricultural countries. Australia would get its place in that market according to its value to Britain as a consumer of her goods. It 'was in Australia’s favor that, once Australia was restored to prosperity, that country was a potential home for the surplus population of Britain. In the weighing of the scales, Australia would get a great preference because of that fact. Mr Bruce said that when the idea of the restriction of world production was formulated at the world conference, it received the enthusiastic support of the 64 nations that were represented there, except Australia. The Australian representatives expressed their opposition, but received no vocal support. Mr Bruce said Australians had to rescognisc that the whole world accepted the doctrine of restriction of production, and they had to consider the proper policy for them to pursue. For the next two years they had to recognise that there was a limit to the markets in which they could sell some of their primary products, and that, of whatever they produced, there was only i certain quantity which t they could hope to sell abroad at prices that would not cause international disorganisation. Britain was restoring her agricultural industry. It was no use confusing the issue or deceiving themselves that they could get a free run on the British market for lamb, butter, and other products by additional concessions. That was not concerning Britain. What was concerning her was the question of how to restore her agriculture. There was no breach of the Ottawa treaty in what she was doing. To flood the British market with some of their products would be te create, among British agriculturists, a terrific antagonism .which would react on the purchase of Australian products generally in Britain. They would not be wise if they precipitated that situation.