AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20315, 25 January 1928, Page 8

AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.

NEW ZEALAND BUTTER AND CHEESE. EXPLANATION BY MINISTER. (Peb United Pbess Association,j WELLINGTON, January 24. Why New Zealand was unable td Tree to the immediate imposition of the now Australian duties on butter m. cheosc was explained by the Minister of Customs (Mr W. Downie Stewart) to-day. The attention of the Minister .s dn n to the statement of Dr Earl Page hat Australia had offered no objection to the increase by New Zealand in the flour and wheat duties without Austrrlia first, receiving six months’ notice, whereas when Australia wished to increase the duty against New Zealand butter and cheese New Zealand had insisted on six months’ notice, as required by the treaty. “ There is no analogy between the two cases,” said Mr Stewart. “ The position is that in April last the Commonwealth Government was advised, with as much particularity as was then possible, that it was proposed during the approaching session of ParMamcnt to alter the wheat and flour duties, and the Australian Government accepted this as notice for the purpose of 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 of the existence of the provisions of 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, it must be remembered that the new tariff on wheat 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 6id per bushel the duty payable is less than that under the old tariff, and if the current domestic value of flour exceed £l4 per ton and the f.o.b. export price exceeds £l2 15s per ton, the duty 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 an adjustment rather than an increase of duties, whereas the Australian duties are virtually prohibitive, and representations were made to the Australian Government respecting their new duties at the earliest possible moment.’ “ The duties on wheat and flour have not had the effect of preventing trade in these articles between the Commonweaitn 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 the duties on butter and cheese would not have been fair to the New Zealand dairy industry. It will therefore be seen that the two cases are entirely different, and no ground of complaint exists against New Zealand, because, first, New Zealand did in effect give six months’ notice, and the alteration does not necessarily mean an increase in 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.”