DUTY REMOVAL ASKED

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 2 August 1933, Page 6

DUTY REMOVAL ASKED

BRITISH GOODS IN CASES OTTAWA PACT DISCUSSED. OPINIONS AT VARIANCE EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSION (By Telegraph—Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Aug. 1. Divergent views on the meaning of an important article in the Ottawa agreement were expressed before the Tariff Commission to-day, the principals in the argument being Professor Murphy and. Mr J. FLislop, who sought the removal' of duties on British goods in caises where no similar products were made in New Zealand. Article 7. of the agreement reads: “Plis Majesty’s Government in New Zealand undertakes that protection by tariffs Shall be afforded against United Ivigdom products only to those industries which aa'o reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.” Among the British goods on which Mr Hislop sought the removal of duties was table crockery, hospital crockery, electrical heating equipment, silver and electroplate ware, cutlery, clocks and watches, medals, badges, wnplated tableware, canteens' and plate fluids for cleaning silver. Professor Murphy : I believe your interpretation of that article to be erroneous.

After quoting the text of article 7 Mr Hislop said: “We claim protection by tariffs to mean that the New Zealand market is protected against imports of certain goods. That does not mean, in am* opinion, that certain industries are privileged by special legislation. It is the market of New Zealand, and not individual industries, that is protected. Therefore under the agreement protection by tariff shall not apply to goods produced in the United; Kingdom unless it con be shown that such goods are being produced in New Zealand and such production can bo assured of sound opportunities for success.”

Mr Murphy said hi® understanding of the position was that New Zealand would not protect industries which had no prospect of. success. New Zealand gave no undertaking to take off revenue duties. He suggested that Mr Hislop had missed the mark. As the duties mentioned were purely revenue duties, article 7 did not apply to them. “You say that if there is no native industry wo should not under that article collect revenuo duties?” asked Professor Murphy. Mr Hislop : Yes. Dr. Craig: For example, whisky? Mr Hislop : Yes. That is the Ottawa agreement.