Mr. Nash In Defence Of The Debated Agreement

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 June 1948, Page 5

Mr. Nash In Defence Of The Debated Agreement

Mr. Mash, replying to the debate, gave a spirited denial to Opposition claims that the Bill signed away Imperial preferences. The Bill provided that every preference recorded in the Bill itself and in the Geneva agreement was maintained. The Bill itself also provided that those preference were not interfered with, either by the Bill or by the Geneva agreement

“This Bill maintains certain preferences between members of the British Commonwealth, as agreed to at Geneva and says they shall not be eliminated,” he said. “In fact, this Bill provides for ths non-elimination of Imperial preferences, as provided for at Geneva,” declared Mr. Nash. The Minister said that during the debate there had been broadcast some of the most vicious misrepresentations he had known. An Opposition Voice: You are master of them all. Mr. Nash: There has been misrepresentation in an endeavour to mislead the people of this country by saying imperial preferences are gone. They are not gone. They are maintained. The Minister said the United Kingdom signed the protocol to the Geneva agreement before November 15 last and was now enjoying its benefits in lower tariffs on some of her exports to the United States. AU other members of the Commonwealth had accepted the agreement and tt would be foolish in the extreme for New Zealand to be the only major Empire country to stand out. “LOT OF NONSENSE," The Opposition had been talking nonsense, but they had been talking with two voices. Discussing the argument that New Zealand, by the passing of the Bill, would be linked to Bretton Woods, Mr. Nash said ratification of the Geneva agreement carried the responsibility to make an exchange agreement in which it would be undertaking not to carry out exchange manipulation which would frustrate the purpose of the Geneva agreement. There was no more to it than that. The Minister said that New Zealand must have a right to determine what goods were imported, but any goods admitted on which we had lowered tariffs would enjoy lhe benefit ol' such concessions. Mr. Nash said he wanted an expansion of international trade, not as such, but only that cxponslon contributed to full employment, increasing production and development. raising the standard of filing and to the freedom of commercial practices. The Bill did not contain any specific clause relating to New Zealand; nor was there anything specifically applying to any nation. but the provisions of the Bill would apply generally to all countries involved. A desirable objective in the Bill was that all Governments should come together, and he foresaw in the next decade or gerteration, countries freely exchanging their surplus resources. He affirmed that by removal of trade barriers better results would be brought to all coun-

tries concerned, and the New Zealand Government would do all in its power to maintain a system of preferential tariffs.

Mr Nash said he thought the agreement would go a long way toward helping the Old Country itself to regain its power and prestige in the world.

“The Bill is good for the British Commonwealth, the United Kingdom, for all Western-minded countries, and for the rest of the world as well,” said the Minister.

Mr- W. A. Sheat (Opp.. Patea) supporting the amendment, said more information was needed as to the commitments. New Zealand would incur by special exchange agreement she would be obliged to make under the Geneva agreement. The report of New Zealand's delegation to Havana —led bv the Minister himself—had said there would be close co-ordina-tion between the International Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. Yet Mr. Nash had come back to this country and successfully bulldozed his left wing members. who for four years had refused to accept the Bretton Woods agreement. into believing the acceptance of lhe Geneva agreement brought New Zealand no closer to Bretton Woods and the International Monetary Fund. Some of these left wingers h?d even taken part in the present debate, assisting the Minister to further his decention of the people on this issue. Mr. Sheat said-he had no doubt New Zealand would ratify lhe Geneva Agreement we had been told bv im- , plication that the Havana Agreement Svould also be ratified —and this meant that for the future our exchange arrangements would be order the control of the International Monetary Fund. He would like to be able to support a measure which would lead to the levelling down of trade barriers, which had been obstructive to the free flow af commerce for many vears. but. like many other members, he could hold out very little bone for an agreement jvhlch laid down certain broad niincinles. and then proceeded <o undermine them bv the insertion of escape clauses. The Primo Minister (Mr. Frasfr) congratulated the Minister of Finaflc* on his contribution to the agreement, which preserved th» interests of small nations like Now Zealand The Onnosition had said the Pill had no teeth. If that was so the Rill could not tear the system of preferences Io pieces. So what was the Opposition afraid of? The Opposition had talked about Bretton Woods as though there was unanimity about it. but there | were OnnosHlon members who did not ' sunnnrt if bv anv means. The Opposition amendment was defeated bv 40 votes to 34 and the second reading of the Rill was carried by 40 votes to 35 Mr. T C. x Webb (Opp.. Rodnev) voted wi*b lhe Government on both divisions Mr. Shand was absent for both of hem. j When the House was left sitting at 12.35 a.m. it was debating the short title of the Bill in the commit--1 tee stages.