Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

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

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1931. RETALIATION.

T TNANIMOUS APPROVAL lias been given io the Prime Minister’s declaration that New Zealand will buy where she sells, for the adoption of a retaliatory tariff against Canadian goods has been decided on only after the exploitation of all possible means of reaching a settlement. It is difficult, therefore, to see how private firms can reach an agreement where the Government has failed. It is true that Canada imposed a prohibitive tariff against New Zealand butter for the protection of her own primary producers, and it is also true that New Zealand is not in the same position as Canada, inasmuch as she does not produce any of the things she buys from that Dominion, hut the effect of tariff barriers would be felt by the New Zealand consumer only if Canada was able to supply goods that could not be purchased elsewhere. That is not so, because Canada’s loss in this instance will be Britain’s gain, and we are not necessarily depriving ourselves of access to the best buying market. The greatest weakness of Canada’s position lies in the trade statistics for the last complete year before the duties were increased. In 1929 New Zealand exports to Canada were valued at £3,353,979, of which butter accounted for £2,707,669, and the imports from Canada were valued at £4,492,820, including motor vehicles and parts £2,371,431. Canada, clearly, has more to lose than New Zealand by imposing a prohibitive tariff, and it is just possible that this fact will be borne in on the Canadian Government. APPLES IN PLENTY. PAROCHIALISM that regards -*•*- the Nelson fruit growing industry as hostile to Canterbury should be vigorously discouraged, for the people of this province have still the capacity to absorb many more apples than they are doing at present. The reason is that those who would relish more apples a day cannot get them cheaply enough, and others who overlook them as a regular article of diet are not induced to get the apple habit by any appreciable effort on the part of the growers or the retailers. Marketing is not so much a matter of tariff barriers as of advertising and turnover. Similarly the full exploitation of the local market by systematic campaigning would reduce the urgency of export and sale in England. Just as in many homes the combination of honey, butter and brown bread is not appreciated, so the apple is also passed over, yet if people were induced to adopt these foods more, it would naturally follow that good health and good fellowship would unite Nelson and Canterbury in a closer bond of kinship. A REAL LEADER. TT WOULD be a tragedy if world- ■*" wide tributes to the soundness of Mr Forbes’s finance were not endorsed by the people of New Zealand at the coming general election, and we think that the good sense of the people will avert such a possibility. One of the oldest Australian journalists, Mr Benjamin J. Hoare, recently attempted to analyse Australia’s complaint by a series of points which are of striking significance to New Zealanders. They were:—. 1- —Politicians follow public opinion instead of leading it. . 2.—A1l patties alike reflect general public extravagance. 2 The Australian Federal Government (Labour) hesitates to cure the extravagance of which the Labour Party was not the sole cause. 4.—The Nationalist opposition is more intent ori scoring against the weakness of the Labour Government than in constructive criticism.

The compliments paid to Mr Forbes by the “ Observer ” give point to the fact that his policy is a direct contradiction of the hxiom that politicians follow public opinion. He has seen but one course in the present crisis, and he is following it faithfully, without regard to popularity or leadership or the sweets of office. Ilis action sums up the difference between Australia and New Zealand, to which such pointed reference lias been called time and again in London. He is the head of a Government that dares to be unpopular, and he has shown none of the weakness that keeps a constant eve on the ballot box.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TS19310608.2.54

Bibliographic details

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 134, 8 June 1931, Page 6

Word Count
682

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1931. RETALIATION. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 134, 8 June 1931, Page 6

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1931. RETALIATION. Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 134, 8 June 1931, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert