OTTAWA AGREEMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 157, 5 July 1934, Page 4

OTTAWA AGREEMENT

Sir, —There has been so much distortion of fact regarding the Ottawa Agreement that the following points are worth emphasising:— (1) Air. Stanley Baldwin’s statement, to the New Zealand delegation was:— “Your country has always given us such a liberal preference, and treated us so fairly, that we do not fee] warranted in asking you for much. It will be sufficient if you ask your customs experts to confer with our experts on a selected list of items.” (2) Sir Horace YVilson, representing the British Board of 'l'radc, said:“Great Britain is satisfied generally with the New Zealand tariff, and docs not desire its being lowered.” (3) In the upshot, New Zealand undertook to remove the surtax (average about 6 per cent.) from all U.K. goods; to reduce by 5 per cent, the duties on clothing, biscuits and con fectionery; and to abolish the duty on art silk piece goods. These changes were duly made in October, 1932, following the return of the Ottawa delegation (4) New Zealand, like other Dominions, also undertook that no duty against U.K. goods should be higher than would be consistent with a specified formula (article 8). But it should be noted that the Australian tariff, after having been reduced to comply with this formula, is still more than twice as high as ours. It is therefore impossible to conceive that exactly the same formula can require any further lowering of our low tariff in New Zealand. We must always have been well under the limit which the Ottawa agreement allows.—l am, etc., A. E. MANDER, General Secretary. New Zealand Alanufacturers’ Federation. We 11 in gton July 2.