THE OTTAWA AGREEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 61, 13 March 1934, Page 6

THE OTTAWA AGREEMENT

(To the Editor.) - j Sir,—The Et. Hon. J. G. Coates, Min-' ister of Finance, has stated through the Press that the contention this federation arrived at, dealing with the matter of revenue tariffs, has .no foundation 1J in fact, and we are therefore anxious, •without entering into an argument -with the Minister of Finance, to place before the public our views and the method by which we have arrived at them. We must rely entirely upon the Ottawiv Agreement for which the Minister of Finance, the Et. Hon. J. G. Coates himself was responsible. In this signed and ratified agreement, under article six, it is definitely stated that the revenue tariffs .of EMOths should be removed and has' been duly carried out. ■V| In article eleven it deals with the 3 per cent, primage—another revenue tariff —and this has to be removed when the financial position of ~Se\v Zealand will permit. These two are purely revenue tariffs, and the Hon. Minister, when presenting the agreement to Parliament, referred to them as such. Article 7 reads as under: — His Majesty's Government in New Zealand undertakes .that protection by tariffs shall be afforded against United Kingdom products only to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunity of success. In this clause there is no mention whatever of revenue. This clause, in our opinion, is purely protective, and we claim that it means exactly what it says, or, in other words, only those Xew Zealand manufactured products which has a reasonable opportunity of .■.•suce^gs^BhalLag-.

ceiye protection; and we claim, under this article, that rev.enue tariffs on all other goods imported from the United Kingdom should be entirely free from anj' revenue tariff. That this is the correct reading o£ article 7 is; in our opinion, undoubted, as article S gives to New Zealand the right to institute an' inquiry into protective duties with the object of placing the United Kingdom producer on a level with the New Zealand manufacturer. This is being fully investigated by the Tariff Commission, but it might be noted that this only applies to those articl-s of importation that are in competition with New Zealand productions, so as to place the United Kingdom producer in the position of a domestic competitor. We do therefore claim that the Ottawa Agreement,-subject to the schedule A to E and to the findings pf the Tarifi Commission under article 8, does under article 7, give to'the United Kingdom exporter an entry into New Zealand of all her other-exports free of Customs duty. It .might be interesting to note that article 7 of.the New Zealand and United Kingdom ' Ottawa Agreement is exactly the game ag article 9 for the;-Australia-United Kingdom Ottawa ' Agreement, arid ■"in. their annual report of 1933 the Australian Tariff Board deals with article 9-in the following words: — ,'■ It is in the elimination of; duty Vcharges on British goods which at pre- - sent .cannot be commercially manufactured in Australia that assistance, the board holds, can'be given to the British manufacturers and the Australian consumer. ,„ ' ",.. Froni ■ this'- you will see that "the Australian Tariff iioard fully agrees with our interpretation,: of article 7. " Finally, we fully realise- the Government' must have revenue, but; there are other-means of obtaining revenue without, breaking an honourable agreement, and the Ottawa Agreement, in the opinion of this federation, is not being carried out ;iu" the spirit or in the letter. Our trade with the Old Country is' falling alarmingly and the only possible commercial. way of increasing- that flow-of trade is by reducing the barrier of high economic tariffs in conformity with the whole Ottawa Agreement. —We are, etc., THE NEW ZEALAND PRODUCERS AND ■ UNITED KINGDOM MANUFACTURERS RECIPROCAL TRADE FEDERATION. ' GEORGE T. HALL, Secretary.