RECIPROCITY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1859, 13 September 1906, Page 2

RECIPROCITY.

OPINION IN AUSTRALIA.

PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT Reoeived 11.86 p.m., September 12, Melbourne, Sept. 12. The House of Representatives is considering the reciprocity treaty with New Zealand in oommittee. Mr Deakin pointed out that being a treaty it must be aooepted or rejected as a whole. Amendments oould not be made without the absent of New Zealand. He thought they should vote on a resolution as a whole. If the House oame to the oonolusion that some duties were injurious to the Commonwealth and that they ought to be set aside, the treaty ought still to be accepted, only on the definite condition that these changes were made. If the House would almost unanimously accept treaty, then if a majority was of opinion that any par* tiouiar items should be altered, there might be added a recommendation to the Government of New Zialand. On the whole he thought the treaty a fair bargain, and if it were not quite fair to Aus tralia, he was inclined to vote for it as the beginning of reoiprooal trade between the two oonntries. If the House decided to ask for oertain alterations, it would be neoessary also to oonsider what farther concessions would be made to New Zealand, It was a well-balauoed treaty. He had asked the Customs Department the effects on revenue, and was informed that it would be a very difficult matter to estimate; but taking a normal year’s trade it was thought the treaty would mean an inoreaso of revenue. The department oonsidered that the ohannels of trade would alter slowly, and in the meantime extra revenue would be reoeived to the extent of a hundred thousand pounds yearly, or even higher. That was a tentative and approximate estimate. Under the New Zealand treaty dnties in some oases would be raised against Britain, bat the latter has given oonoessions under epeoial proposals submitted last week. He eonolnded by Baying that any amendment would be fatal to the treaty. Reoeived 11.45 p.m , Sept, 12. Melbourne, September 12. Mr Glynn deolared that a wrong principle was being followed. In every other part of the world countries reduced duties against eaoh other, working towards the ideal of freetrade between them.

Sir John Quick strongly objected to any alteration in the duties on oaodies, timber, grain, and fodder. Toe first two should stand till the Tariff Commission reported on them. As for graia and fodder, he opposed the protection of Australian farmers being taken away. He could not see how the duty on Oregon timber would benefit New Zealond.

Mr Deakin interjected that Mr Seddon had regarded that item as the most important.

Sir John Quick deolared that Oregon was used for the purposes fo: whiob New Zealand timber was unsuitable. Mr Deakin said Mr Seddon was of opinion that New Zealand timber oould take the place of much that was now nsed.

Sir John Quick thought he had made a mistake.

Mr Edwards pointed out that the general effeot of the treaty would be to give increased protection to manufaoturers.

Mr Thomas deolared that it was disguised protection. He would vote Bgainst the whole proposal. Mr McOoll objected to the treaty being submitted now. It had waited three years and oould not suffer from delay until next session. It was a mongrel production.

Mr MoLaan, though an ardent advccale of pretsreooe, could not bos the advisa. bility.of raiaiog duties against all the reßt of the Empire exoept New Zealand. Under the treaty the farmers had to make all the sacrifices, and manufacturers gained all the advantages. Mr Deakin suggested that a vote bo tiken first on the question whether the treaty be ratified. If such an aotion were not agreed, to, it would be a wesie of time to consider details. He was willing for the treaty to be limited to twelve months That would enable the next Parliament tc reoonsider the whole matter. In the meantime the House could consider whal amendments, if any, were wanted, and New Zealand oould do the same. The debate is proceeding.