Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 30, 1936 TRADE WITH BRITAIN

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19133, 30 September 1936, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 30, 1936 TRADE WITH BRITAIN

In view of the impending departure for London of the Minister of .Market-

ing to open up negotiations for increased trade between New Zealand and Great Britain, it is of importance that some consideration should bo given to the attitude of British interests and to see how far their views coincide or conflict with those held in the Dominion. In this country it has been the custom in some quarters to decry the Ottawa agreements on the ground that they confer undue benefits nn the Mother Country. It is interesting to learn that at Home an almost entirely opposite opinion is expressed. In a recent report, fot example, the Federation of British In dustrios stated thai ft careful study of the results of the Ottawa agree ments led to a conviction that certain modifications should 1)0 made if Liiiled Kingdom industry WftS to enjoy its rightful share of Imperial trade. The Association, of British

Chambers of Commerce arrives at a somewhat similar conclusion, for its

report slates that an examination shows that some important British trades have not benefited from the agreements and contends that wine of the provisions have proved exceedingly beneficial to the Dominions. A learned judge slated the other day Mini whom it was found that both parlies to a dispute considered that l hey had suffered from a decision the court felt that it had succeeded in dispensing justice, and if the same formula is applied to the Ottawa treaties there would seem to be good ground for assuming that a reasonable balance was struck. The ideal, of

course, is to obtain the unqualified approval of both parties, but failing this it is bettor to have both parties dissatisfied rather than one, and this, clearly, is the result of Ottawa. The next task, thou, is to endeavour to remove existing coniplainits and the duty of the Dominion Governments is not only to advance their own claims but also to consider those from the. other side. The first complaint of the Federation of British Industries is that the Dominions have failed to implement their guarantee to reduce tariffs to a level which would provide British manufacturers with a full opportunity of reasonable competition, and the report: states that when these undertakings have been fully carried out much of the criticism will disappear. A .similar, point is made by the Chambers of Commerce, which allege that the methods of tariff revision in the Dominions need considerable improvement, and claim, in particular, that the Australian Tariff Board .specifically allowed the Australian manufacturer a margin of protection against the United Kingdom exporter. If this last-mentioned charge is correct it is undoubtedly contrary to the provisions of the Ottawa agreement and Australia has a case to "answer. In so far as the more general complaints are concerned, it is necessary that they should be particularised, and, if they are found to bo warranted, there is an undoubted responsibility upon the Dominions to remedy them. Another aspect of Empire trade to which exception is taken at Home is that while the Dominions all impose tariffs against British goods, Dominion manufactures are admitted to Great Britain free of duty. It is claimed, and Willi some justification, that the same principle should apply in both directions, since already some British industries arc suffering from Empire competition, and it is suggested that Great Britain should reserve the right to impose duties against Dominions products if it is necessary to safeguard her own manufacturers. In .support of this view, it is pointed out —and here again the argument is difficult to refute—that the industries of (he United Kingdom are the main producers of the purchasing power which alone enables Britain to buy so substantially from the overseas countries of the Empire. This statement, more than any other in the two reports', provides food for serious thought on the part of the Dominions, for it emphasises in clear terms the fact that thp ability of the Dominions profitably to market their produce is governed by British industrial activity. It follows, therefore, that every step taken to restrict British exports must react to the detriment of the Dominions. Conversely, of course, restrictions placed by Great Britain on imports.from the Dominions would inevitably have the effect of curtailing the overseas markets for British goods, and the lesson in both cases is that both parties should do everything within their power to promote the greatest freedom of trade. The .same point is further emphasised by the statement of the Chambers of Commerce that the Dominions must absorb larger quantities of British goods if the United Kingdom policy of expanding domestic agricultural production, is not to entail n diminution of imports of these?'products from the Dominions. The same body, it is interesting to observe, is opposed to restrictions on the production of foodstuffs and urges that prices should be kept low enough to encourage consumption. That the British view generally is broader than that 6f most of the Dominions is indicated by the assertion that all discussions for the renewal or revision of trade treaties should seek as their main objective an increased interchange of products, whether between Empire countries themselves or with foreign countries, and this, after all, should be the common aim because it is clear that real prosperity can only be restored by an all-round increase in international trade.