N.Z.’S TARIFF.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 911, 4 November 1933, Page 8

N.Z.’S TARIFF.

Manufacturers Reply to Farmers. THE QUOTA DISPUTE. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON. November 4. The Tariff Commission sat in Wellington this morning, when the farmers’ case for the abolition of the tariff was answered by Mr A. E. Mander, secretarv of the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation. Mr Mander said that three arguments had been advanced by the farmers: “ That the Ottawa Agreement requires us to reduce our tariff; that by reducing our tariff we may be able to avoid the imposition of a quota on our exports to Great Britain; that the tariff raises prices to the consumer and increases farm production costs. Ottawa Agreement. “ With regard to the Ottawa Agreement it seems to have been generally forgotten in the country that after Ottawa New Zealand abolished the surtax on imports from the United Kingdom. which meant reduction of duty of about 6 per cent ad valorem. The lowering of the tariff on apparel and the removal of surtax accounted for a reduction of over 124 per cent ad valorem. Other reductions were made on hosiery, confectionery and silk piece goods. The Dominion was also pledged to keep her protective duties below a certain specified level. “The view that Great Britain does not require any further reduction of tariff ‘is supported by cablegrams which appeared in the newspapers on July 17 when the Prime Minister, in London, cabled to Mr Coates as follows: ‘ The treatment by New Zealand of British manufacturers, so far as the tariff is concerned, is considered fully satisfactory by the British authorities.’ Tariff and Quota. “ The spokesmen of the farmers’ organisation, urging a reduction of tariff, have argued that this would assist in preserving a ‘ free market,’ i.e., exemption from duty or quota for our farm produce exported to Britain. “ I need only recall to Commissioners the public statement made last July by the president of the Farmers’ Union, Mr Poison, and the prompt and emphatic refutation of that statement given by the British Minister of Agriculture: ‘Major Elliot has re-affirmed that concessions in the tariff on British goods'entering New Zealand would not meet his requirements in regard to a quota, his concern being the protection of British farmers against excessive importations.’ Even this was not sufficient for the New Zealand farmers’ spokesmen, and they continued their cry that British farmers would forgo their quota if we abolished our tariff. Then Mr Baxter, representing the British farmers, declared flatly that there could be no possible connection whatever between our tariff on British manufactured goods and the British farmers’ demand for ja. quota on farm produce. “ The third contention of the farmers’ spokesmen has been that the existence of a protective tariff, and the existence of Dominion industries behind our low tariff wall, has necessarily had the effect of raising prices to the consumer, and thus of increasing the farmers’ costs. They have simply taken this for granted, without any inquiry into the actual facts.”