QUOTAS AND TARIFFS.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19125, 9 December 1933, Page 7

QUOTAS AND TARIFFS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —This Is the essence of Britain’s trade policy under the Import Duties Act of 1932. Hence New Zealand has again received a shook by the revival of the advocacy of the quota on her primary products into Great Britain. There is, however, one way to silence this agitation for all time, and that is by giving effect to the Ottawa agreement- The' agitation has again shown itself immediately' 'following the announcement that “There is little likelihood of the New Zealand Parliament discussing the tariff question earlier than July next, instead of March, as was originally intended." The Import Duties A<t of 1932 armed Britain with a weapon by which she oould dictate terms to those who wished to maintain reasonable trading relations with her. Tills was applied to the French Government last week, the Immediate effect of which was the abolition of 15 per cent, surtax on British goods entering France. The Ottawa agreement debars Great Britain from taking similar steps with New Zealand until 1935, and this applies equally to the question of a quota. New Zealand, however, is taking a grave I'isk in delaying the abolition of the tariff on a long list of British, goods which are not in competition with local, industries, and therefore under Article 7 of the agreement, New Zealand has no right to apply such tariff. Where British goods do come in competition with local industries, then it is only in connection with the importation of such goods that the Tariff Commission is to determine what rate of duty is necessary to place the British manufacturer on the basis of a domestio competitor. This is clearly set- out in Clause 8. What is disturbing the mind of the British exporter is the waste of time in arriving at this position.

If New Zealand will take goods for goods, then any application of a quota on New Zealand butter or cheese on the part of Great Britain would mean the application of a quota to the same extent by Britain on her own exports to New Zealand, and no country to-day wishes to quota her Own exports. New Zealand must face the position that if she wishes to silence the quota agitation then she can only do so by agreeing to take British goods in payment, for her primary products on the conditions clearly set out in the Ottawa agreement. , Spend our accumulated London funds on British goods and let the real wealth return to the Dominion in the form in which it went out —goods. Australia, due to her high tariff policy and encouraging uneconomic Industries, Is in a hopeless posilion, as she realises that she will not, be able to comply with (lie Ottawa agreement by 11135, and therefore her primary producers stand the chance of losing the privilege or free entry for those products into Great Britain. Her policy, therefore, is lo drag Ne<v Zealand into Hie net, and thus prevent New Zealand from benefiting by Australia’s unfortunate position. The position is so serious that one marvels at Hie apalliy of Hie farming community towards Hie loss of the British market, and there is nothin? more sure than this, unless we speedily make amends for our dilato-I-ness in complying with the Otlawa agreement.

My advice io Hie fanners’ organisations is to supply themselves with a copy of tiie Otlawa agreement, make a close study of it, get the best legal advice on its actual meaning, and then insist upon its application where it can he. applied without, reference to I lie Tariff Commission, and show Britain that, you really mean In play the game and not treat this important document as a mere scrap ot paper. Tlic Ottawa agreement is primarily an agreement lo secure for flic primary producer of New Zealand a continuation of the free entry of his goods into Great Britain, and, secondly, io regain for Hie British manufacturer his lost trade with New Zealand.—l am, etc.,

.1. IIISLOP, Chairman, U.K. Manufacturers’ Assn Auckland, December 7, 1933.