OTTAWA AND AFTER

Northern Advocate, 17 August 1933, Page 7

OTTAWA AND AFTER

WHAT THE PACT MEANS BRITISH COMMODITIES. NEW ZEALAND’S POSITION. (Special to “Northern Advocate.”) AUCKLAND, This Day. A c onsidered statement'“dealing with his interpretation of the full import of the terms of the Ottawa agreement was issued yesterday by Mr John Hislop, chairman of the Auckland branch of the United Kingdom Manufacturers ’ Association.

According to Mr Hislop, the Ottawa agreement drew a definite distinction between the treatment of revenue and protective duties; a statement to Parliament by the Eti Hon. J. G. Coates substantially supported the contention that Articles VII. and VIII. were to be taken as relating to purely protective duties, and Articles VI. and XI. as relating to purely revenue tariff. Article VII., he,-argued, dealt with a protective tariff, protecting tlie New Zealand market against British imports on goods that -met with no local competition or where local conditions were not conducive to the successful development of the production of such igoods. Under that clause, those protective tariffs were to be abolished, along with the revenue tariffs—surtax and primage—referred to in Articles VI. and XI. It did not permit the Customs authorities to say that as no serious competition was found for British goods in the local market, the tariff would remain, or might even be increased under the camouflage of a revenue tariff. It w r as unreasonable to suggest that the contracting parties would be so concerned to abolish small revenue tariffs such as the surtax and primage and leave an impost of 20 per cent to 25 ])er cent which might bo termed a revenue tariff. Moreover, it was not necessary to have local competition for a tariff to act as a protection to such a market. Trade in Spirits.

As the agreement, stood, it. was correct to hold that W'hi sky would enter New Zealand duty free, under his interpretation of Article VII. “It might, have been an oversight on the part of the New Zealand negotiators, ” added Mr Hislop, 1 ‘ but w r e must not allow the issue to be clouded by prohibition ideals, but. must look on whisky and spirits as British commodities of great importance on the schedule of British exports. On the other hand, the manufacture and sale of spirits, both in New Zealand and Britain, are subject to special policy legislation, where wisely or unwisely the legislation discourages trade ou the ground of public policy, and this distinguishes it from other trades; and if New' Zealand

were t« export spirits to Britain they would ho .snl)mittod to a high tariff in spite of the Ottawa agreement, and doubtless Britain would permit an amendment of the agreement to meet this position. ” JVIr HisJop said he did not know what idea of the requirements of revenue and protection the original framers of the New Zealand tariff had, but he did hold that, on the face of the Ottawa agreement, the retention of high tariffs on goods that did not, meet’ witJi the requirements of Article VII,, would be a deliberate breach that would meet with serious reprisals up-

on New Zealand. The wßole tariff in all its application to the convention was under review at Ottawa, not part of it. Chief Compensation. In the opinion of Mr Hislop the main attack on the New Zealand tariff to compensate Britain for privilege's given the Dominion was: (1) The abolition of all revenue tariffs under Articles VI, and XI.; (2) the abolition of tiro protective tariff under Article VII. on British goods that met no local competition and did not interfere with local industries; and (3) a partial reduction or the maintenance of the tariff under Article .VIII., provided British imports were given the full opportunity of reasonable competition and thus placed in the position of a domestic competitor, 1 “In view of the fact that over 90 per cent of New Zealand exports find their market in Great Britain,” Mr Hislop added, “it is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the Ottawa agreement to the future development of New Zealand, and in view of the unrest caused by the exchange and tlie long delay in giving effect to our part of the bargain, New Zealand must bo careful to give, full effect to the spirit and letter of the Ottawa agreement—an agreement that reflects the greatest credit upon all those responsible for its creation, and an instrument which, if given full opportunity of success, will bring about a better understanding and trading relationship between Great Britain and the Dominion, while not in any way impairing the full economic development of the industries of cither country.”