TARIFF RETALIATION

Evening Star, Issue 19773, 25 January 1928, Page 11

TARIFF RETALIATION

AUSTRALIA V. HEW ZEALAND FLOUR.AMD DAIRY PRODUCE CONCERNED [Special to the ‘Stab.’] WELLINGTON, January 24. A controversy is developing between the New Zealand and Commonwealth Ministers oyer the tariff relations of the two countries. Dr Earl Pago (Commonwealth Minister of Customs) has stated that Australia offered no objection to an increase by New Zealand in flour and wheat duties without Australia first receiving six months’ notice, whereas when Australia wished

to increase the duty against New Zealand butter and cheese New Zealand had insisted on sis months’ notice, as required by the treaty. “ There is no analogy between the two cases,” remarked the Hon. Downie Stewart to your correspondent. “ The position is that in April last the Commonwealth was advised with as much particularity as was then possible that it was proposed during the approaching session of Parliament to alter the wheat and flour duties, and the Australian Government accepted this as notice for the purposVof the tariff agreement between the two countries. When the scale of duties was finally decided, the Commonwealth Government was asked to accept the amended scale, and agreed to do so. As a matter of fact, there was, in view of the prices and conditions ruling at that time, and ol the existence of provisions in the New Zealand Customs Acts relating to dumping, ample power to have charged under the agreement, without the final acquiescence of the Commonwealth Government, the rates of duty finally adopted on Australian wheat and flour. In connection with this is must be remembered that the new tariff on when and flour does not necessarily mean an increase in the duty on these products. If the current domestic value of'wheat at the port of export to New Zealand exceeds 5s 6£d a bushel the duty payable is less than that under the old tariff, and if the current domestic value of flour exceeds £l4 per ton, and

f.o.b. export price exceeds £l2 15s riei ton, the dutv is less than that chargeable under the previous tariff. ‘‘ The position with respect to the increased Australian duty on butter, cheese, and potatoes is quite different. No notification was received from the Australian Government until after the new tariff had been introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. Furthermore, the New Zealand duties were a adjustment rather than an increase of duties, whereas the Australian duties are virtually prohibitive, and representations were made to the Australian Government respecting their nc duties at the earliest possible moment. The duties on wheat and Hour have not had the effect of preventing trade in these articles between the Commonwealth _ and the dominion, whereas it is considered that the new Australian duties will probably' stop further exports to the Commonwealth in the commodities mentioned. In view- of the terms of the tariff agreement, it is considered that to have agreed to the

immediate imposition of duties on butter and cheese would not have been fair to the New Zealand dairy industry. It will, therefore, be seen that the two oases are entirely different, and no ground of complaint exists against New Zealand, because, firstly, New Zealand did in effect give six months’ notice, and the alteration .does not necessarily mean in increase in the flour or wheat duties; secondly, the Australian duties against our butter and cheese are virtually prohibitive, and no notification of the proposed action was received by New Zealand until after the prohibitive duties had been introduced into the Australian Parliament.”