Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

TRADE PACT WITH GERMANY

MEASURE RATIFIED BY HOUSE VIEWS OF MEMBERS By Telegraph—Press association WELLINGTON, October 6. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m., and proceeded with the second reading of the Trade Agreement (New Zealand and Germany) Ratification Bill. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, explained that the Bill contained a provision for anti-dumping duties and also for a reconciliation of trade between the two countries. The Hon. Adam Hamilton, Leader of the Opposition, asked where the reference was contained in the Bill to Germany’s purchase of 25 per cent, of butter. Mr Nash: It is in a letter from the German Government. It has not been published because the publication of certain matter in it might cause some slight embarrassment to the German Government. The Minister continued that in his opinion the agreement could not do other than extend the trade of both parties. It would not be disadvantageous to the United Kingdom and It would also tend to promote better relations between the Dominion and Germany. He held that the closer nations got together by trade relations or otherwise the further away would be the danger of war. Wisdom of Bill Doubted Mr Hamilton pointed out that Mr Nash had not said the agreement would have no ill-effect on British manufacturers or British exporters. The agreement, he said, would not tend to extend trade, and international agreements of an exclusive‘type such as the present one very often led to complications. Often they had been causes of disputes and war. Personally, he said, he and the members of the Opposition stood for Britain first, second and third, and anything which would disturb our pleasant and valuable relations with Britain would have to be very carefully considered. Did the British Government welcome the agreement? he asked. So far as fruit was concerned, said Mr Hamilton, there was a lot of value in the agreement, but such was not the case concerning butter and wool. He went on to refer to the. fact that the German Ministry of Propaganda was discouraging the consumption of butter in Germany and was encouraging the consumption only of commodities which Germany herself could produce. There would be no chance whatever of increasing the consumption of butter in Germany. Not Detrimental to Britain The Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason, said that the Leader of the Opposition had tried to state that because the agreement was beneficial to Germany and New Zealand it must of necessity be detrimental to Britain. He did not think the world was made that way. They had held that if something benefited one side It must harm someone else. If such were the case it would kill international trade altogether. There was nothing in the Bill antagonistic to any other country, least of all to Britain. In fact, the proposed agreement was supported by Britain herself. Referring to Mr Hamilton’s reference to the low consumption of butter in Germany, Mr Mason said the German people might have been denied butter through sheer necessity, and he thought that members of the House had a sufficiently high estimation of the German people not to wish to see them deprived of the opportunity of securing it. Mr H. S. 8. Kyle (Nat., Riccarton) stated that the Nazi Germany of today was out to break up democracy, and he expressed surprise at the Labour Government making an agreement with that country. He was strongly opposed to the Bill and would vote against it If he were given the opportunity of doing so. The Minister of Railways, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, said it was very difficult to understand the attitude of the Opposition towards the agreement when there was so much evidence of the desire of that Party to sell butter to Germany in the past. There was no danger to the British or New Zealand manufacturer in the agreement, and it seemed to him it was very difficult indeed to find any objection to the Bill. The Balance of Trade The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) stated that it the Bill had come down quietly without the extravagant claims advanced for it by the Minister of Finance, he was sure it would have gone through in a few minutes. For the last 10 or 15 years there had been a balance of trade with Germany in our favour, so where was the necessity for the agreement? There was nothing new In the agreement, which contained practically only what had been suggested by past Governments. Mr J. Hargest (Nat., Awarua) said he was not opposing the Bill, but it was reasonable to assume that Germany was only concluding the agreement because it was to her advantage. It was not so much food that Germany wanted to-day as foreign credits. Germany appeared to have a predellction for breaking agreements, and although he could not remember her having broken a trade agreement, what safeguard was there against her breaking the present agreement after New Zealand had made considerable purchases from her? Mr B. Roberts (Lab., Walrarapa) said that past Governments had tried to push our trade with the East. If it were right to do that, was it not equally right to push our trade in Europe? He considered that the Minister had made a very valuable contribution towards the marketing of butter. Might Be Sorry Some Day Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) expressed his disappointment that the Minister of Finance had not come back with an agreement extending our trade with Britain, and said we might find ourselves sorry some day for concluding the present agreement. He saw a possibility of future difficulties in the agreement with a country

possessing such a record as the Government of Germany had. If a division were taken on the Bill he would vote against it. Mr Nash, replying, said there was nothing tremendously new in the Bill, but he was of the opinion that it would be advantageous to both New Zealand and Germany. There was not a word in the agreement which would restrict trade. It would merely remove some of the barriers already existing. The Bill was read a second time on the voices and passed through its remaining stages without discussion, the Minister of Finance stating, in reply to a question by Mr Hamilton, that the duties would not come into effect until a proclamation had been issued, probably this week.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19371007.2.97

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20852, 7 October 1937, Page 11

Word Count
1,074

TRADE PACT WITH GERMANY Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20852, 7 October 1937, Page 11

TRADE PACT WITH GERMANY Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20852, 7 October 1937, Page 11