THEIR OWN MEDICINE.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 April 1922, Page 11

THEIR OWN MEDICINE.

N.Z. TARIFF AND VICTORIAN BOOT TRADE. ONLY COPYING AUSTRALIA. The Australian Press is able to see, and is not afraid to write in justification of New Zealand’s attitude in “reciprocating” with Australia 'by placing her under the No. 3 tariff (foreign) treatment which was first of all served out to this country by Australia. In the latest number of the Australian Leather Trades Review appears the following crisp comment on a recent protest in Victoria on New Zealand’s action: “Doctors, declares a homely saying, don’t like their own medicine. A liberal dose of protectionist physic is the best thing in the world for Australia, according to the manufacturers of Victoria, yet they relish the outcome as little as can be when some other country makes up the same prescription and begins to take it. This is the way one may, not unfairly, read the protest that (as we go to press) has been published 'by the Victorian Boot and Shoe Manufacturers’ a Association against the doubling of the duty on their products in the recent revision of the New Zealand tariff, «a departure which, it is declared, has practically closed the market there to the Australian article. With this assertion we see no reason to disagree—indeed, independent evidence confirms it; where a difference of opinion may begin is in the conclusions drawn from it, and the suggestions made to our Minister. Our Victorian friends never were noted for brevity in matters of this nature. New Zealand’s import duty on Australian footwear used to be 22J per cent. She treated Australia on the same footing as Britain in this respect, and during the war Australia supplied the deficiency felt by New Zealand through the interference with deliveries from Britain. Now the duty against Australian boots is 45 per cent. (British bear 25 per cent.) and they are placed on the same level as those of foreign countries, say Japan. The Victorians’ main argument is that whereas Australia sells a big quantity of boots to New Zealand, New Zealand sends very little in this line to Australia. The accusation of dumping is denied—a genuine demand is stated to have been responsible for the high water mark of 1920 when the Commonwealth supplied 62 per cent, of the total footwear imports of New Zealand. “Still the question comes up quite naturally, if a tariff ranging from 35 to 45 per cent, is good for the Commonwealth, what is the matter with a 45 per cent, duty for New Zealand? Logically, where is the escape? New Zealand’s production may be small today, but was Australia’s always large? It is beside the point to talk about the service rendered to the Dominion by providing her with fine footwear. If fresh plant was put down, some one was willing to take the risk. Britain’s setback was Australia’s opportunity. There is no sentiment in these things—as is shown by the classing of Australia among foreign countries. What appeal has the Commonwealth to the Dominion’s ‘gratitude’? The only argument that will hold water is the request for equal treatment with the United Kingdom. But then New Zealand’s Imperialism has differing degrees of warmth for different parts of the Empire. Nor does it follow that the principle of reciprocity will be extended to products which New Zealand is desirous of learning to make for herself.”