Conflicting Views Of Geneva Trade Pact In The House

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 June 1948, Page 5

Conflicting Views Of Geneva Trade Pact In The House

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO IMPERIAL PREFERENCE

(Press Association) PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. June 29 Opposition members should remember that the United Kingdom Government itself had agreed on the provisions of the trade agreement, said the Minister of Education (Mr. McCombs) in the House of Representatives tonight, when lhe second reading debate on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Bill was continued.

Opposition speakers were firm-1 ly of opinion that the Bill and the agreement it ratified tied New Zealand to Bretton Woods, and Imperial preferences were | being shattered.-The Minister of; Finance (Mr. Nash) entered the I debate to say that Britain had got a good bargain in the Geneva Agrqpment, and so had New Zealand. Imperial preference was safeguarded, he asserted. Mr McCombs said one argument used by the Leader of the Opposition against the Bill was that its adoption would involve loss of sovereignty. "The reply to that is that ail international agreements involve loss of sovereignty." said Mr. McCombs. “If we are to have international agreements at all we have to sacrifice some loss of sovereignty to obtain any advantages.” STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. It had been advanced that the agreement was an attempt by the United States to dominate the world. The opposition, in condemning the Bill, had found peculiar bedfellows, because throughout the world those who had attacked agreements made between the United Kingdom and the United States had been the Communists. After discussing import control and maintaining that that policy had been the means of obtaining full employment and industrial expansion in New Zealand. Mr. McCombs said there were four alternatives to such a policy—raising foreign loans, increasing the exchange rate, increasing tariffs and lowering wages. None ot the alternatives was suitable to the Government, but he suggested the National Party would adopt such measures if they came into power. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Opp.. Tauranga) said it had been made clear there were definite loopholes and escape clauses throughout the Bill, the ultimate goal of which was the destruction of preferences. “Uncle Sam” had driven a hard bargain at Havana, and it was that bargain which the House was being asked to ratify- In spite of utterances by Mr. Harold Wilson (President of the British Board of Trade) Sir Stafford Cripps and others the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nash) had persisted in telling the people that the decisions in the document were not inimical to Empire preferences. It was beyond understanding why he should persist in saying that preferences would be maintained and not undermined, when the House of Commons and statesmen throughout the Empire were utterly at variance with his statement. The Minister was deliberately destroying New Zealand’s own fiscal policy by asking that the Bill be sanctioneo. The Minister was reiving on the escape clauses in the Bill, but there were likewise penalty clauses and there was power for other nations to employ sanctions against New Zealand. Mr. J. T. Watts (Opp., St. Albans) declared that the Opposition had never promised to abolish import control immediately, but favoured a ■gradual replacement of that inept system by something better which would give greater freedom of trade. Mr. Watts said he could not agree with Mr. Nash that Imperial preferences were adequately safeguarded. British countries were pledged not to

increase the present margins of preference and also pledged themselves at Havana (o eliminate the system of bulk produce deals between the various Dominions and the United Kingdom. Mr. Watts said he had the greatest respect for the United States, but because of our agreement with Great Britain for the purchase of our produce it would be many years before tariffs granted by the United States would come into operation. The generosity of the United States during the war vears should not blind us to the fact that the United States had a very, strong prejudice against our system of preferences. AN AMENDMENT Mr. Watts then moved the following amendment. “That because the agreement, if adopted, wou d, by virtue of the provisions of the article concernexchange arrangements, involve this Dominion in the adoption of substantially the same provisions as are contained in international rules governing use of exchange controls and techniques, agreed to by members of the International Monetary Fund, this House is of opinion that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed until such time as the question of ratification of the Bretton Woods Agreement shall have been debated and disposed of by this House.” Mr. Watts added that the amendment would give the Government an opportunity of honouring its promises that the Bretton Woods Agreement would be brought forward for discussion by the House and openly debated, so that the House and the country would know what the agreement involved. The amendment would also give those members of the Government who were so anxious to express their independent views on Bretton Woods an opportunity of doing so. Mr. R. M. Algie (Opp., Remuera): Surely we don’t sign intending to escape. Mr. Doidge: What folly we have been guilty of in this matter. Nine months have been wasted by New Zealand and other Empire countries in neglecting the substance of Empire trade and pursuing the shadow of international trade. Mr. T. E. Skinner (Govt., Tamaki) said Government members hoped and believed the Geneva agreement would do something to'preserve peace and supported it for that reason. Mr. Skinner quoted a newspaper editorial criticising Mr. Holland’s attitude of uncompromising hosXity to the Bill, and said there appeared to be a suggestion in a portion of the Press that the Opposition shobld change P*; leader. Mr. Skinner said the Government played second fiddle to no one in its support for Imperial preferences and Empire trade, but Mr. parently wished to build a fence round the Empire and prevent British countries having anything to do with the rest of the world. To suggest, as the Opposition had done ,that Britain signed the agreement under duress was an insult to Britain and to the United States. Mr. Skinner said that while he did not agree wholeheartedly with the Bill and was not enthusiastic about portions of it, he believed it would encourage world trade and supported it for that reason. It was the best document of its kind that could be achieved at the present stage.