TARIFF DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20280, 14 April 1934, Page 30 (Supplement)

TARIFF DISPUTE.

United Australia Party and Dr Page. ambiguous article. (Special to the '•Star.") SYDNEY, April 6. Much depends upon the possibility of Arranging a compromise in regard to the tariff between the United Australia party and the Country party; but so far Dr. Page and his followers are obduratej »nd decline even to negotiate with a view to settlement. Their obstinacy has so ?ar exasperated the moderate section of ►heir supporters that the “Sydney Morning Herald,” which will cerainly not be accused of over-much sympathy for tariffs, has been taking them severely to task for their impracticability. ,* This view of the case has annoyed th« Chamber of Commerce, which, consisting bhiefly of importers, is naturally antitariff; and its tariff revision committee has addressed to the ‘‘Sydney Morning Herald” a solemn reproof for “abandoning ground which has been so long identified with its policy.” The “Herald” took pp the challenge at once and in one of the ablest and most convincing of all the articles that it has published on this question, charged its critics with reckless disregard for the actual conditions of international trade and the. circumstances of our industrial life. It is all frery well to talk about “revising the tariff downward,” but “if we began to revise our tariff with a sledge hammer,” our industries may all collapse in ruins. Mr. Lyons is at least attempting to work to the plan laid down for us .at Ottawa; and even if he is moving slowly and the results are for the time inadequate —“does Dr. Page propose to ignore Ottawa? Is he prepared to get rid of the Federal Tariff Board altogether? If the world’s economic problems were as simple as Dr. Page apparently believes, and could be solved so quickly, we would be very much nearer permanent security |ind prosperity than wc are to-day.” Meaning of Article X. This/vigorous rejoinder to the free trade extremists seems to have produced a good effect; and the “Herald” returned to the subject from another standpoint in a special article which appeared subsequently, dealing with the interpretation of the terms of the Ottawa Agreement. In this article—fwhich bears all the signs of official “inspiration”—it is pointed out that article pL of the Agreement is interpreted in two distinct ways bv the British and tee Australian manufacturers. The phrase, “full opportunity for reasonable competition,” is assumed by Britain to ha can “an adjustment of "duties that {would place efficient manufacturers of the United Kingdom and of Australia on exactly the same price level in the Australian market.” The Australian Tariff Board, however, considered that such an interpretation of article X. “would seriously reduce the sale of goods that could be made in Australia and sold at reasonable prices.” This would mean injury to many industries already established for many years, an increase Unemployment, and loss of capital; and these things would engender bitter opposition to the Agreement. Tariff Board’s View. . Ths Tariff Board has therefore decided that “a reasonable duty to protect nn efficient economic industry should beJ high enough to raise the landed cost of an oversea product to a level which would compensate the Australian producer for his higher wages and higher costs of raw material and higher overhead expenses,” and still “provide a marginal advantage in favour of the Australian manufacturer.” The British manufacturer* ob'ect to thr, reading of article X. on the ground that it would place them outside th“ Australian market where efficient and economical Australian industries are able to meet the Australian demand.” i~o it would, but that is the very essence of protection. The objections to such a policy are all based on the principle of free trade, which Britain has herself abandoned. Such differences as these are not to be got over bv the “hev rr e st°!>» °f the Chamber of Commerce or Dr. Page.