TARIFF QUESTION

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 12008, 10 December 1924, Page 3

TARIFF QUESTION

EMPIRE PREFERENCE ISSUE MINISTER FOR CUSTOMS ON THE CANADIAN PROPOSAL. SOME MISUNDERSTANDING. Reference has been made _by . the Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Minister! for Customs) -to the suggestion put' forward by Canada that the proportion of Empire workmanship entitling goods coming into Australia or New Zealand to the benefits of the British preferential tariff shall.be reduoed from 76 per cent, to 60 per cent. , “The Government; agreed,” stated Mr Stewart, “to give a trial to the 75 per cent, proposal, in view of the great importance of. maintaining a uniform practice, both in Australia and New Zealand, as otherwise exporters would he put to grave inconvenience. Recently the Government has received representations from Canada with respect to the adoption of a 60 per oent. basis, in lieu of a 76 per cent, basis, and is at present communicating with the Governments of that country and Australia; It should, however, be recognised that, in coming to a decision, it is necessary to’ view the matter from many angles. Consideration has to be given," among other'things, to'the interests of our own manufacturers, and ’ of those is other parts of the -British Empire," and also to the difficulties which are created for exporters if each dominion adopts an. independent system, involving different forms of certii fied invoices, with the consequent de-, lay and _ inconveniences caused to importers in New Zealand and elsewhere through documents not being in order when goods arrive.” A MISUNDERSTANDING. The Minister added that there, appeared to ybe some misunderstanding with respect /to a decision which has been made, to admit under the British preferential tariff until April .Ist, 1926, paper made wholly in Great Britain and other British possessions from foreign pulp, even though 76 per cent, of the factory or works cost is not represented. “It is, in* effeqt, alleged,” he said, “that this decision means that the new basis • has already broken down. Those who are- familiar with the administration of the preferential tariff regulations will know what similar questions arose under the 25 per oent. basis, and that they are bound to arise in a greater degree with every increase in the percentage. They wifi also know that the quoted decision regarding paper is merely a continuance of the policy hitherto followed when such .questions arose." (Many years age it was decided that goods made whoUy in Great Britain or other British possessions from'such for-, sign material as ingots of gold or of zinc, rough-hewn timber, ana, fibres of various kinds, were'entitled to preference even if the expenditure in British materials dr labour were less than -25 per cent. It could not have been reasonably argued that this was evidence that the 26 pel - ; oent. basis was 'too high, yet te-day it was claimed that the recent decision in respect of paper proved that • the " percentage-should be reduoed. Exactly similar difficulties would arise whether the percentage was 50 •per cent, or 75 per cent. A decision as to the future policy with respect to /paper had. he said, been postponed until a later date, pending receipt of certain .infd.rmation not obtainable in New /Zealand: A similar'.point had been raised with, respect to bar and other iron made in Great Britain from foreign* billets and blooms, and without doubt many similar questions would arise -in other directions., -■* .