Division Bells Ring In The House On The Geneva Trade Agreement Bill; Made Urgent

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 June 1948, Page 6

Division Bells Ring In The House On The Geneva Trade Agreement Bill; Made Urgent

MR. LANGSTONE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE NEW MEASURE

(Press Association) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., -June 29 The division bells rang today for the first time this session when, resuming after the week-end interval, the House of Representatives accorded urgency, by 40 votes to 35. to the second reading debate on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Bill.

A feature of the second reading debate, which continued during the afternoon, was criticism of the Bill by one Government member (Mr. F. Langstone, Roskill), who expressed concern over some of the clauses of the Geneva Agreement, hut refused to be drawn by Opposition :nterjectors, who asked him to declare which way he would vote on the Bill.

Mr. T. R. Shand (Opp., Marlborough). when the debate was resumed. described the Geneva Agreement as a "travesty of an agreement. "The House was being frustrated bv the Government in its task of informing the public fully on the issues involved in the agreement. It was idle to oretend that a vote of the House was necessary to enable New Zealand to ratify the agreement because the Government members were bound to support it. The Government had been at pains to show that the Bill meant nothing, that the sacrifices New Zealand was apparently to make were only apparent and to show its own left wing that we were not giving much away. If. indeed, we were giving away so little as the Government speakers claimed, then we would certainly gain little from the Geneva Agreement, which would not be worth the paper it was written on. Government voices: Tear it up! Mr. Shand claimed that no delegation had contributed more to the failure of the Geneva conference than the New Zealand delegation. The Minister of Finance had been concerned with criticisms not of currency reformers, but of the Government’s Communist friends. Government voices: A lot of rot. Mr. Shand said Mr. Nash went to Geneva determined to bring back an agreement so innocuous that it would meet Communist criticisms. A Government member: There are no Communists here. Mr. Shand: Oh no. not in this House. They go by another name. Mr. F. Langstone (Govt., Roskill) said certain things in the . Bill and certain things which ' had been left out, were of fundamental importance. The Bill was “beautifully worded.” but it would not be the idealists who would control and administer the world's commerce under the International Trade Organisation. There is no feature of Government policy more essential to New Zealand’s welfare than import selection, bat article 12 of the General Agreement imposed a means test by Which outsiders could determine whether or not we would be entitled to continue our policy of import selection. An Opposition Voice: Vote against K Mr. Lanestone: Let the honourable magpie keep quiet. Mr. Langstone said it was likely that under the proposed tariff concessions New Zealand would still have an adverse trade balance with the United States. We would probably spend more in importing American motor-cars than the United States would spend on imports of New Zealand butter. We could not help ourselves in that respect. The United States had become an industrial colossus and American industrial and business leaders were confident that

the tariff reductions negotiated at Geneva would aid expansion ’of American export trade“Here is a Bill for approval of this Parliament which may do untold harm in the future to this Dominion of ours,” said Mr Langstone. who said the members’ first duty was their trusteeship of New Zealand’s welfare. He would be lacking in a sense of duty if he did not speak his mind without fear or favour on this matter, as he did on all occasions. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has occupied his time. Opposition Voices: He hasn’t said how he is going to vote. Mr. J. A- Hanan, who was the next speaker, said Mr. Langstone had made a devastating attack on the Bill. It would be interesting to see how he would vote. Mr. R. G. Gerard (Opp., Ashburton ): He’s looking for an escape clause. Mr- Hanan said the Bill implied ultimate destruction of Imperial preferences and our economic sovereignty. Mr. Nordmeyer had spoken of opportunities for exporting New Zealand butter to the United States at a reduced tariff. “If we can get it loaded.” said Mr. Hanan. However, what was more likely to happen was that the United States and Argentina would, at some future time, enjoy equal access with us to our traditional market in the United Kingdom for their butter and other farm produce. If our own overseas markets were to be destroyed because of the breaking down of Imperial preferences, the workers of this country would be reduced to serfdom, because we could not then afford to import the goods we vitally needed. “Our alternative to the passing of this Bill is to tighten bonds with other parts of the British Commonwealth.” said Mr. Hanan. “We should develop our resources within the framework of an Empire Customs Union.’’ New Zealand was not playing its part in developing its vast natural resources as they should be developed, and if we were to make our proper contribution to Comonwealth recovery we must work harder or longer, or more efficiently. Mr. W. T. Anderton (Govt.. Auckland Central) said he viewed the agreement with a certain amount of disquiet, but not because of any link with Bretton Woods- New Zealand was not tied to Bretton Woods bv the agreement, which was a document vital to the Dominion and the world. It aimed at a policy of full employment, a higher standard o,f living and development of backward countries. Further, it did not create trade blocs which invariably were followed by military blocs and then war. • Mr. S. W. Smith (Opp., Hobson) asked if the agreement would affect New Zealand’s right to alter the exchange rate. The tariff schedules themselves showed reductions in Imperial preferences. Surely reduction in tariff for a foreign country 7 would automatically reduce preference- The agreement, if passed—he did not doubt that it would be—would mean that New Zealand would be at the mercv of an international organisation run bv bureaucrats. Mr. McCombs (Minister of Education) had begun his contribution to the debate when the House adjourned at 5.30 for tea.