SIR J. PARR'S SUPPORT

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 24, 30 January 1933, Page 10

SIR J. PARR'S SUPPORT

NO OTTAWA BREACH

Two points of the exchange question were touched oh by Sir James Parr at Christchurch on Saturday morning (states the "Christchurch Star"). Sir James, who is visiting Christchurch declared himself as pro-exchange. In his opinion there seemed to be little foundation for tho complaint that New Zealand had sold Britain over the Ottawa Agreement, and tho view some people took that England wa's disappointed over the inereaso in the exchange rate did not impress him. Sir James, a former High Commissioner, said that Britain knew perfectly

well that New Zealand's primary industries, on which she depended, were so hopelessly depressed that it did not pay the farmers to produce. Unless, therefore, production for export was stimulated and increased the country would go under. Questioned concerning the Ottawa Agreement and the effect of high exchange, Sir James asked what actually was the position, and proceeded to explain. "Britain at Ottawa gave Australia the same tariff privileges as New Zealand. No more, no less," he said. "Yet Australia had an exchange of 25 per cent, against Britain while New Zealand at that time had only 10 per cent. Again, Australia's tariff wall, taking twenty-one important lines of goods, was 400 per cent, higher than that of New Zealand. Notwithstanding New Zealand's much more favourable position, she received no more favours than Australia. For that reason," said Sir James,'"there seems to be little foundation for the complaint that New Zealand has sold Britain. If at Ottawa New Zealand had received greater privileges than Australia, and on our merits we were- entitled to it, there would be some ground for complaint."