RECIPROCAL TRADE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1622, 13 December 1912, Page 8

RECIPROCAL TRADE.

CONFERENCE AT CHRISTCHURCH

SUGGESTED TARIFF ALTERATIONS.

(By Telesraph.—Press Association.)

Christchurch, December 12. A conference of delegates fTom the South Island Chambers of Commerce and Grain, and Produce Merchants' Associations, to discuss tho question of reciprocal trade- benefits between Australia and New Zealand, opened this morning in tlie Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Urary Wood (chairman) ruled that the decisions of the conference were for report only to the Chambers concerned, and not at the present stage to the Govornment. Motions were unanimously agreed to as follows:— "That any complete or general measure of Freetrado between Australia, and New Zealand is undesirable, and would not time of scarcity in either country. "That, nevertheless, in. legard to the products of the soil, it is desirable to adopt a policy of reciprocity on a basis that any duties agreed to or imposed shall be such as to impose- similar conditions ond confer equal advantages to each country, and shall be sufficiently low so as not to press hardly on the consumer in the tinw of scarcity in either country." "That it shall bo a condition precedent to tho adoption of any tariff, that,.subject to reasonable Government inspection at the port of shipment, the Customs restrictions at tho port of entry shall bo such as will not causa unnecessary restraint of trade." Recommendations atrresd upon in regard to tariff alterations were as follows:— Present duties. Pro-J Av.s- posed N.Z. tralia. tariff. s. d. «. d. s. d. Wheat, per cental ... Il 9 10 0 9 Oats, per cental 0 9 16 0 G Beans, per cental 0 9 H 0 9 Peas, per cental 0 9 1 G 0 9 Maizo, per cental 0 9 1 G 0' 9 Barley, per cental ... 2 0 2 0 10 Potatoes, per ton .... 20 0 20 0 10 0 Chaff, per ton 20 0 20 0 10 0 Onions, per ton : 20 0 20 0 10 0 Flour, per cental .... 10 0 2 6 20 0 Mill offals, per cental 10 0 1 0 *2 0 Split peas, p*r cwt.... 2 0 4 8 *2 0 Pearl barley, per cwt. 10 4 8 2 0 Malt, per cental 5 0 0 6 2 0 Linseed, per cental... Free 2 0 Free Hav, per cwt 010 10 Free OatniKtl, per ton .20 0 83 4 20 0 *Per ton. Regarding the duty on flour, which the conference first decided should be 30s. per ton, and subsequently altered to tho present rate, 205., it wns resolved: "That in connection with the proposed flour duty provision be made-(l) That the present conditions in the New' Zealand Act providing for eombination in restraint of trade be uphold, subject to a further,provision that the Governor-in-Council shall retain tho right to increase the duty payable if it is proved that Australia is making a dumping ground of New Zealand, to be defined as selling for Now Zealand at lower than Australian current rates." It was decided to recommend that when the tariff was discussed Chambers should bo asked to appoint a.n expert to confer with the New Zealand Minister ia a consultative capacity.

. THE TARIFF ON WHEAT. , In the course of- a discussion on the question of the tariff on wheat, Mr. W. ,E. Reynolds (Duncdin) said this was a matter of trade between countries with similar products. There could be trade in these lines only in abnormal seasons, but Australia had these abnormal seasons five times to our one. Commerce had to bo considered ns a body by taking the duty off Australian wheat, and letting it in free. The producer here would be the loser perhaps, but only for a few years. The consumer would bo the gainer, and the speculator would lose because he would not have so 1 many opportunities. Tho producer v;euld gain because he would have so much better markets for other lines. He was afraid he was alone in Shis matter, but those alone were often right. He would suggest that this discussion'should be opened up generally and in the press, and'a decision adjourned for a few months. The subject was so vast that all recommendations made should be made very gradually. Speaking in the interests of the producing community and of the community as. a whole, he urged most careful consideration. .- Mr. A. H. Turnbull (Christchurch) deplored having heard any delegate display such elementary knowledgo of the subject. Such remarks, he held, were subversive of good citizenship, and detrimental to the interests of New Zealand us a whole.' They could, not be substantiated on any platform, and he himself would like to disnrove them from the standpoint of a citizen, a farmer, and a unionist. Tho wheat production of New Zealand was diminishing, and would continue to diminish unless afforded reasonable protection. Moreovtc, in the interests of agriculture it was extremely undesirable that any cultivation should be curtailed. It would be a very sad day for New Zealand if we over had to rely for our food products upon a country UUU miles away. It was all very well in fames of peace, but it would be different in times of war. Frcetrade in wheat would mean the driving of wheat production out of New Zealand- because farmers would abandon it for other lines. (Mr. Reynolds: "No.") The point they wanted to reach was to stimulate agrionltura and the employment of labour and be independent of foreign production. In ISO" Wre were 402,000 acres under wheat, but in 1908 it had fallen to 250,000 acres To-day he was sure there was less land under wheat than at any time during the last twenty years. . Mr. Reynolds: What's tho reason? Mr Gow: Other things pay bettor. Mr Turntall said that really the subject v;as-so tiear.that it was not worth whilo discussing it.- ... Mr. Gow said that theoretically Mr. Reynolds was right, but practically lie was W Mr g 'Reynolds said .that he believed in Freetmde, but if he would get any support he would suggest that the duty should not be more than 6d. per cental on Australian wheat. Mr. H. Harraway (Dunedin) said' he b»lieved that free wheat would stop wheat growing in New Zealand. There were §5,000 people employed in. wheat growing and flour manufacture in New Zealand, Hi they would suffer. Aso the railways would suffer a loss of 410,000 a year if they lost the wheat traffic. Further, 35000 tons of offal weTe used here, and if wheat went, poultry and P'S ™«f S ™ f no too, because people would not be able to pay the price .for the Australian proMr' Reynolds pointed out that he did not desire duty off flour, but. only off Fleming (Invercargill) said he agreed with a great deal ot what Mr. Reynolds had said. There was a diminution in the growth of wncatbeauio3 other things paid better. Certainly the climate Ink labour' conditions affected the position, and if it wore not for them production would be greater. ■ Mr W H. Rose (Dunedin) said he believed the value of land was rising so much that wheat growing would be impossible in the future. It would pay the farmer better to give it up and grow other things. Millers need not be nffected bv the bringing in of Australian wheat, for they could then secure cheap offal. If wheat went up there would be a reaction, and he believed the time would come when wo would have to ask Australia to send us all our wheat. Mr C. H. Hewlett (Christchurch) said this would be a national danger, for every oountry should be selfHSiipporting. , Mr J. E. Todhunter (Christchurch) inquired as to the extent of dumping. Mr Harraway said there.was no menace at present. Australian millers got better prices for thoir offal. The chairman referred to the Canadian law against dumping. When dumping was discovered the duty was doubled. Mr K. G. Turner (Timaru) said dumpin" did obtain. Australian mills were sellin" here below cost price in order to keep their machinery miming-three shifts,., and so lowering tho first cost.