TARIFF POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22354, 30 August 1934, Page 10

TARIFF POLICY

RECIPROCAL ■ AGREEMENTS LABOUR'S PLAN CRITICISED MINISTER REVEALS IMPRACTICABILITY (From Oub Parliamentary Hepobteb.) WELLINGTON, August 29. Labour’s plan for abolishing tariffs and endeavouring to arrange direct trade agreements between countries was criticised by the Minister of Customs (Mr Coates), speaking in reply to the second reading speeches on the Customs Acts Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. What 'would Labour’s plan bo ? asked Mr Coates. Would it be a system of embargoes ? Mr A. S. Richards: No. Mr Coates: Or quantitative restrictions? Mr Richards: Planned agreements. Mr W. E. Parry (to Mr Coates) : Surely we could ascertain what we would want from various countries. Mr Coates: Yes, but there are all kinds of mixed systems in the minds of members. Tariffs regulate the imports of goods from other countries and give preference to Britain and other parts of the Empire. Apart from revenue, the only need for a tariff is to assist our local industries. Mr R. M'Kecn: They should come first. Mr Coates: It does not matter from my point of view. The Labour Party subscribes to a new doctrine, but we cannot take the policy of Soviet Russia as being the best for this country, Mr M‘Keen: My opinion is that you first estimate the revenue you want and then distribute it over various industries.

Mr Coates: We require approximately £7,000,000 from tariffs. Mr M'Keen: That is just what I said.

Mr Coates: We must have the revenue. The Labour Party overlooks that. We hear a lot from them about a graduated tax on all incomes, a laud tax, and all that, but that would not nearly make up the revenue we require. We get only £4,500,000 from these sources, and, apart from them, we neqd another £7,000,000. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage) : Where does the revenue come from now?

Mr Coates: You want me to say, “From the people.” Mr Savage: And without the people knowing you are doing it? Mr Coates: That is leading us into another channel, but the people seem to like it that way. If the Labour Party were administering the country they would be faced with the same human elements. In considering this question, I think we can eliminate the suggestion of embargoes. They are difficult to apply generally. They may be necessary for certain periods or for certain items. Mr D. G. Sullivan: Australia has embargoes. Mr Coates: They are all gone now. About 80 items were affected, but they have been replaced by high tariffs. Australia imposed embargoes as she had quickly to restrict imports because she did not have credit at the moment. I am going to say that, after all, what (he Labour Party has beeu talking about is quantitative regulation. Mr Savage: No.

Mr Coates: You would still require tariffs. It has been suggested that before we make agreements we should eliminate tariffs. Apart from the revenue aspect, that would be very, very unwise. I do not see how we can negotiate agreements with other countries unless we can offer them something better than they have already.

Air APKeeu; The other countries would be iu the same position.

Mr Coates said that a tariff did not In any way Interfere with the right of the Government to negotiate with other countries.

Mr Savage: Can we not import by license?

Mr Coates:' Is not that quantitative regulation? Is not that the quota? I can follow Mr Savage’s idea, but I am going to tell him straight away that if he thinks he can make these agreements in six or twelve months he is just the man we are looking for. Mr Savage: Should wo not make a start?

Mr Coates: Does the hou. gentleman suggest that the Government has not been in the closest touch with other countries in an endeavour to make satisfactory arrangements for the export of our produce? Mr Savage: We have seen no results.

Mr Coates: Exactly, and I am just wondering what results are ahead of us. We can only press and do our best to make an offer. Mr M’Keen: Like the offer made to the British Government!

, Mr Coates: What is that? Are you referring to the cablegram? I know' of nothing more deliberately unfair than what the hon, gentleman is suggesting. Mr E. J. Howard: This is the first time the Government has said anything about the matter. Mr Coates: The New Zealand Government never made any such offer to the British Government. If members would read the reports in the British Hansard they would see that Mr Thomas said that no such offer was made by the New Zealand Government. It is true that some trade interests tried to make out that it was an offer.

Mr Howard: This is the first time you have given a denial to it.

Mr Coates: It is not the first time and you know it.

Mr M'Keen: The cablegram was couched in very definite terms.

Mr Coates: I have given you my answer. Yon will go on repeating your statement, I know. Apparently, you arc one of those who will not take anybody’s word. I can’t help that. I have made the position clear. Continuing, Mr Coates said there was ample room for competition within the trading conditions of New Zealand. There was no doubt that the secondary industries would become stronger and be of greater service to the people under the present system. The Minister added that the attitude of the British Government towards Canada and Australia had been mentioned during the debate, but what New Zealand was concerned about Avas its own position. Up to the present all the negotiations between the two Governments had been carried on under the seal of confidence. Ho did not know what the outcome would he, hut i(, was dear enough that the United Kingdom was not offering New Zealand any better treatment than ahe was offering Canada or Australia. Whether that policy would be changed in the future he could not say. The negotiations, as be had stated, were confidential, but the New Zealand Government hoped to be able to release the cablegrams at an early date. Here, again, however, there were two parties concerned, and the consent of the Horne Government would be necessary.

Mr Sullivan: Don’t you think we are entitled to greater consideration from Great Britain than Canada or Australia ? Mr Coates: Are the new tariff proposals sacrifices? Mr Sullivan: Yea.

Mr Coates: I wonder! 1 say cpiitc definitely they are not sacrifices. The tariff schedules as they vest at present are fair and can be substantiated in every instance. All we have endeavoured to do is to keep both to the spirit and the letter of the Ottawa Agreement.