UNITY OF EMPIRE

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1931, Page 7

UNITY OF EMPIRE

POLICY OF NEW ZEALAND NO DESIRE TO BREAJC BONDS HOUSE DEBATES STATUTE TRADE METHODS DISCUSSED BULK PURCHASING SCHEME By Telegraph.—Press A ?so c »« ti °’’/ Wellington, Last Night. Continuing the Imperial affairs debate in the House of Representatives to-day Mr. D. Jones (Reform, MidCanterbury) expressed the opinion that the Empire Marketing Board was doing remarkably good work for New Zealand. As a result of its activities the Dominion was actually receiving preference from Britain because it was continually bringing under the notice of the people in the United Kingdom the necessity for buying Empire goods. -It had been said the British Government favoured bulk purchasing, but Mr. Jones denied this, declaring that no definite scheme of bulk purchase had been submitted to the Imperial Conference. Support for this scheme was confined to the Socialistic wing of the British Parliamentary Labour Party. It was purely a Socialistic venture.

Mr. P. Eraser (Labour, Wellington Central) declared there was not the slightest foundation for the statement that bulk purchase was not included in the policy of the British Labour Government or Labour Party. He quoted from “Labour and the Nation,” which, ho said, contained the official platform on which the British Labour Party had faced the electors. It was definitely established, Mr. Fraser contended, that Culk purchase formed a part of Labour’s agricultural policy.

THE TRADITIONAL COURSE.

Mr. Fraser asked whether Mr. Jones thought it likely that the British Government would have submitted a cut and dried scheme of bulk purchase to the conference, intimating that those were its proposals and the Dominions could take them or leave them. He stated that the British Government had taken the traditional course of including in the agenda sufficient to open up the question of bulk purchase, and the committee had actually considered the proposal ultimately deciding there was not? enough time to deal with it and leaving it for the Ottawa conference. Mr. Fraser expressed regret that the conference had not shown more determination in facing the question of the nationality of married women. Replying to the debate, the Bt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said he had been asked what his attitude towards the questions raised at the Imperial Conference was. He had explained before leaving New Zealand that he stood for the unity of the He fully recognised it was not for him to dictate to the people of Great Britain in respect to their fiscal policy, but at the same time he recognised that one of the main questions to be discussed was the stimulation of Empire trade, and the best means or achieving that end. . He had while in Britain pointed out the measure of preference New Zealand •rave Britain, the er_'_ent of the Dominion’s trade with Britain and how steps were being taken to increase it wherever possible, continued Mr. Forbes. He had not asked for anything'in return. He felt that if. the question of Empire trade were to be discussed it was better to discuss it frankly, and he had pointed out that if Britain adopted a system of preference similar 'to that adopted by New Zealand it would stimulate trade between the two countries. NO DEFINITE SUGGESTION. Mr. Forbes said there had never been any definite suggestion made with respect to bulk purchase. He wanted some practical details before he would be prepared to commit the Dominion to any such scheme. He had never heard while in Britain of any suggestion how the scheme of bulk purchase, and import boards could be brought into effect. All that Messrs MacDonald, Snowden and Graham had said was that they had all open mind on the matter. He found the scheme had never got beyond the election pledge stage, and no practical details had been arranged. Referring'' to the Statute of Westminster, Mr. Forbes said he considered New Zealand was content with the position as it existed. There was not the slightest desire for any change. In reference to the Singapore Base Mr Forbes said the work that was being postponed was that connected with the defence of the base. It was to be dealt with at the end of five years. New Zealand’s contribution, which was now being snread over a longer peiio , would be £lOO,OOO annually instead of £125,000 as before. The defence -work was to be carried out at the expense of Britain. . The Prime Minister dealt with, trade relationship with Canada. He said the New Zealand Government had tried its best to come to an agreement regarding the duty on butter. It was not to be expected that New Zealand would (find the same market for butter in Canada in the future as it had done in the past because Canada was not now able to send large quantities of milk and cream across the border to the United States as it had formerly, with the result that it was able to supply its own requiremente and even export butter. Air. Forbes said New Zealand was giving Canada greater preference than Canada was giving New Zealand. They should consider the matter very closely before deciding to buy manufactured goods from Canada in preference to those from Britain, as Britain took so much of New Zealand s exports. Dealing with the marketing of produce in Britain Mr. Forbes said he had found the management carried out on sound business lines. The organisations were doing their work in a very effective way. There had been a good deal of criticism, regarding the quality, of New Zealand cheese and some criticism with regard to butter. There had also been some comment with regard to the length of time it was held in store, but on the whole he considered New Zealand meat, butter, cheese, apples and honey were being handled along sound lines. He did not suggest there was no room for improvement and that the markets could not bo extended, but the Dominion Was being well served. The Prime Minister then moved a resolution embodying approval -f the Statute of Westminster, and it _was adopted unanimously? '