HOUSE CONTINUES DEBATE ON THE GENEVA TRADE AGREEMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, 26 June 1948, Page 4

HOUSE CONTINUES DEBATE ON THE GENEVA TRADE AGREEMENT

Reference To The "Escape" Clauses Written Into The Measure

(P.A ) Parliament Bldgs-, June 25. The economy of all countries had been built up by some form of protection and it would be impossible to revert to free trade now, said Mr. G. H. O- Wilson (Govt., Palmerston North) continuing the debate alter the luncheon adjournment on the second reading of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Bill. He said that the agreement set out matters that were desirable and should be encouraged by the nations of the world. He believed it would be a good thing to adopt the agreement because a country could do more to improve tire organisation that would grow out of it bv being inside the agreement. He wanted to nut his weignt on the side that was going to bring the greatest amount of international trade. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago) said no country should enter into an agreement at all unless with the honest intention of carrying out the letter and spirit of it. He considered the Bill was just a piece of machinery to enaole the complete liquidation of private enterprise- Once the agreement was ratified Cabinet could go ahead and make any sort of agreement with any country it liked. The Bill involved the whole economic structure of New Zealand and the Minister of Finance had so devalued our currency that the workers were engaged in a hopeless struggle to try to keep wages alongside the costs. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Govt., North Shore) confessed that lie had some doubts about the Bill but they were not of a kind which offered the Opposition any ground for supposing he would vote for the amendments they intended to move. He believed the counsel of wisdom was to wait as long as possible before committing New Zealand to the Havana Charter, which was intended to be a follow-up to the Geneva Agreement, which would be ratified by the Bill. Much depended upon the result of the American election upon the way Marshall Aid turned out, and upon the future of Germany. The United States in her present circumstances benefited most from multilateral trade, but Britain’s situation was different, and it was doubtful if Britain could afford to surrender her right to bilateral trade or to negotiate bulk purchase contracts. The Leader of the Opposition had condemned trade discrimination an poured scorn on the escape claases of the Geneva Agreement. yet it was in ths name of nondiscrimiation that Britain had been prevented from buying dried fruits and other foodstuffs from Australia when she neeed them, merely because she could not afford dollars to make similar purchases from the United States. Dr. Finlav claimed that it was largely due to Mr. Nash’s efforts that the escape clause was written into the Geneva Agreement, enabling Britain to avoid such difficulties in future. He welcomed the provision in the agreement for the development of Customs Unions, said Dr- Finlay. He believed the Western Union in Europe was essential for the restoration of the Western European countries, but it must be a reality economically and socially, not merely a group of mendicant nations lighting America s battles in return for American aid. New Zealand should do its utmost to foster the Western Union' as far as she could do so without injuring her own economy and her ability to assist others. If the Western Union were not developed on sound lines it might be imposed bv force by a De Gaulle or some other demagogue.

Mr. M. H. Oram (Opp.. Manawatu) said it would be interesting to see whether Dr. Finlay would vote in accordance with his speech, which was an outright condemnation of the Bill, or in accordance with the party whip which would crack over him. Some actual proof was required that the agreement would fostef international trade., Mere assurances from the Minister of Finance were not enough. The agreement dealt with more than

tariffs- By the agreement Great Britain and the British Empire would be handing over control ot their tradi to an international organisation, am bv the adoption of the agreemen New Zealand were members of the British Empire as foreign countries Further, the agreement was aimed a the destruction of imperial preference and the destruction of the British Empire. Was the agreement indirect adoption of Bretton Woods? he asked Mr. P. G. Connolly (Govt., Dunedin Central) said he was wholly in far our of the Bill. It was realised that Britain could not go on living on American dollars, and because the Bill provided the means lor increasing trade between nations it was a step in the right direction.

LIBERTY OF OPPOSITION. Mr. T- Clifton Webb (Opp.. Rodney) said he would vote for the Bill and had told the Leader of the Opposition of his decision, against which was raised no objection. All the same, he did not think anyone on the Government Benches would have similar liberty . Mr. Webb said he doubted whether there was any valid reason for the Minister to get the Bill passed by June 30- The present intense activity contrasted strongly with the Government’s masterly inactivity in regard to the Bretton Woods proposals. which had to be signed by December. 1944, but, despite two promises. Parliament had never had a chance to discuss the matter for the reason that the Government gave its. supporters no freedom in voting and therefore could not get its team into line. For that reason Bretton Woods had been kept in the background. He had never wavered in his support of the principles of Bretton Woods. Other members of his party—most of them, in fact—were opposed to it; but that was another example of the freedom members had in the National Party. Mr. Webb said he was wholeheartedly in favour of the objectives of the Havana Trade Charter and would be prepared to support it. even if it was of no advantage to New Zealand. so long as it benefited Britain. However, he had little faith in the outcome of the Geneva Trade Agreement. He had been bitterly disappointed with the outcome of U.N.Oto date, but he faced the question of whether he should oppose the Bill despite Ins lack of faith in the outcome of the agreement. He had discussed the matter with his colleagues, who were so convinced the agreement would fail that they were prepared to vote against the Bill. However, he was convinced it was an honest attempt to improve international trade. He wished he was as confident of its success as he was certain of the need for it. Despite his doubts as to the, outcome his position was lust this: “With earnest hopes but no great expectations—with no expectations at all. reallv—l am living mv support, not grudgingly nor reluctantly, but not hopefully, to the motion now before, the House.” Mr. M. Moohan (Govt.. Petone) reminded Mr- Webb that two members of the old Conservative Party—really the National Partv—had thought they could assist New Zealand by standing onnosed to their party but thev were ignominiously ejected from their nartv. The same might happen, to IRIr. Webb if he pursued his present Independent course. WILL TAKE URGENCY. SAYS PRIME MINISTER. Mr. Moohan was speaking when the House adjourned at 5.30 pan. Mr. Fraser, replying to Mr. W- J. Broadfoot (Opp., Waitomo). indicated that the debate would continue next Tuesdav and he hoped the Bill would be passed that day. Urgency would be taken and it was possible the House would sit until midnight. The House then adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.