Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 19, 1934. SEEKING NEW MARKETS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18584, 19 December 1934, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 19, 1934. SEEKING NEW MARKETS

While none will question the desirability of the Dominion seeking new markets for her produce, it is not possible to accept without qualification the recent criticism of Mr. Jessep at Napier, who has overlooked several factors which, whether we like it oi not, compel consideration in any discussion of overseas trade problems. The tenor of his address was that the salvation of the country depended upon the obtaining of new markets and that the opportunities in this connection were being almost wilfully ignored by the Government. “There is no evidence, ” ho said, “that the Government, has- grasped the opportunity knocking so loudly as New Zealand’s door. ’> Having charged the Government with inaction, a certain amount of responsibility devolves upon Air. .Tessop to show what, in the circumstances, it could have done. He certainly suggests that trade agreements should lie entered into with foreign countries to take our produce, imt. that, is not nearly*so simple as it sounds. His own. statement is that, “the most, urgent work before New

■n land is to ontor into negotiations for reciprocal trade wherever there is a possibility of-finding an outlet for any of our surplus products.” The essence of this sentence, and the essence of any trade agreement, lies in the word “reciprocal.” No country is going to buy from us unless we will pledge ourselves to buy from them, and if due thought is given to this point alone it will be realised that most of Mr. Jcsscp’s criticism is immediately weakened. He states that our competitors have completed trade treaties which preclude our entry into markets which might have been available. The reference is to agreements between Australia and Belgium and between Canada and Prance. It js only fair to point out, however, that the treaty made by Australia primarily conferred benefits on Belgium, the Commonwealth being threatened with serious embargoes unless she took, some steps 1o reduce her ! favorable trade balance of ovei £3,000,000 a year. In the case of the Franco-Canadian treaty, trade was fairly evenly balanced, and both countries, therefore, had something to gain by an agreement for “reciprocal” trade. Neve Zealand’s position in regard to' Belgium is that approximately Bf> per cent of the total trade represents exports. and, consequently, any agreement to rectify the balance would react to the detriment of the Dominion rather than to its benefit. In the ease of France, New Zealand already has a favorable balance of over £1,000,000 out of a total trade of less than £1,500,000. Where could the Dominion gain by a readjustment in this instance? The third country quoted by Mr. .Tessep was that of the United States, whose Secretary of State, he sold, had referred two months ago to the necessity of America’s retreat from trade nationalism. While certainly there are good indications that Mr. Roosevelt’s administration realises that it will have to make some tariff revision in order to regain lost trade, the effecting of adjustment is not so simple a matter as it would appear. Agrarian interests in the United States poll many votes, and die fact is that the American attitude towards our produce is precisely the same as it was. It can hardly be suggested that New Zealand, which ranks thirty-fifth in the list of countries trading with America, could seriously influence her fiscal policy. Undoubtedly there is a. growing opinion in the United States in favor of reducing tariffs, but so far nothing definite has materialised, and, in any case, the reason for this new trend is not to provide markets for other countries, bul to secure export markets. If Now Zealand ever enters into an agreement with America it can only be on a “reciprocal” basis, which means that he Dominion will require to give concessions to American goods, and, since these could only be given at the expense of Great Britain, they are not likely to be approved by the great majority of people who, apart from their inherent loyalty to the Mother Country, and apart from the commitments of the Ottawa agreement, recognise the moral obligation of supporting the one country that is our only worth-while customer. Any negotiations for new trade treaties immediately raise the question of interEmpire trade. Agreements with foreign countries, with a few exceptions, can only be made at the expense of the Empire, and principally at the expense of Great Britain. In the first ten months of this year, Empire' countries took £3(5,000,000 worth of our produce, and foreigners £5,400, , 000 worth. In the same period, wo spent £15,000,000 in the Empire and ; £5,500,000 in foreign countries. Is it , reasonable to suggest that we should take any action £hsit would have the effect of still further increasing the ; disproportionate quantity of iqipovts : that are of foreign origin, and how 1 would il be possible to enter into agreements with such countries as Belgium, France, and America —the : only three mentioned by Mr. .Tessep — without displacing some of tho small amount, of import trade with the United Kingdom? Tho whole problem of securing new markets bristles with difficulties, and this fact 4should be. :

recognised by Mr. ,Tessep, who, until recentljq.,was a member of the Meat Board, which certainly lias not. distinguished itself by finding new outlets for the Dominion’s meat, He remarks that meat producers have a vital interest in discovering (lie reason for the Government’s inactiop, and it might reasonably be retorted that they have an equal interest in being told why the Meat Board was so inactive during all the years he was a member. The answer in both cases is that new markets are much easier to talk about than they are to find, and although it is possible that some opportunities do exist criticism of a purely destructive nature will not assist in finding them.