PARLIAMENT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8924, 18 September 1907, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

House of Representatives.

Per Press Association,

.. Wexi-inqton, September 17. The Etonse met at 3.80. The Hon. J. A. Millar, in moving the third reading of the Tariff Bill, said there were two governing principles guiding the Government in framing this tariff, the first and foremost being the taking off of duties on the necessaries of life, aud on articles .that could not be manufactured in the colony, and there was the encouragemoutto our local industries. Some members appeared to think that the encouragement of our industries was of little account, hut ho thought they would agree that in such a country as this—with the amount of agricultural laud available—that they must take those industries in baud with their agricultural pursuits. They wore aware of exactly how many men could be settled on the lauds of the colony. They were inot with the statement that this colony wanted population, aud It had been advocated by many that wo bright to go in for an immigration policy; but what was the good of doing that unless they had work for them when they come here? It Was true that every adult was worth £250 to the State. Then, every man driven out to look for work elsewhere meant a loss to the State aud increased national indebtedness on others. He said that under the tariff assistance had boon granted to 40 industries. Mr Millar read a statement showing tho duty on farming implements in force in the Commonwealth aud Canada, by which ho showed that farming implements in these two countries were taxed ten times as much as they wore in Now Zealand. Proceeding, lie read a tabulated statement of the farm produce of the colony which wore protected by tax on similar commodities imported from other countries. These figures, he contended, woro a direct reply to the statements which had been made that tho Government was unduly taxing tho farming industry of the colony. „ Mr James Allen said they were all in favour of assisting local industries, but differodjin the manner o f granting assistance’. He contended that a blow bad beoii struck at the iniuing and farming industries, which were indigenous to the country, in nn attempt to assist Other industries which were not indigenous to the country. Referring to Mr Millar’s remarks, he contended that no one could say how many they were able to settle on the laud. Ho looked forward to a huge settlement on the land, but he did not think the time had arrived yet when they should go in for helping the country from the towns, instead 6f from the country itself. Ho contended that the Canadian duty on farming implements meant nothing except' on paper, as they manufactured all classes of farming implements iu Canada He deprecated tho heavy tax on cheap boots, as tins placed a very heavy burden on the poorer people who used cheap boots. Under tho present tariff, os boots cost 7s 3d, against Os Id under the old tariff; but the man who imported 80s boots got them for 80s, or9d cheaper than under tiro old tariff. Continuing, he said it was understood, as a result of the Imperial Conference, it was intended to encourage the trade between England aud the colony, but, lie added, duty had been increased on almost every article imported from the Old Country. He contended that because tho colouy could not get preference iu the Old Country it had clapped on the duty on almost all tho articles from the United Kingdom. had stated at the Imperial Conference that New Zealand admitted a large number of British manufactures free of duty. Ho (Mr Allen) had counted tho items, and found there were only ten which were admitted free. Referring to tho preferential tariff, ho said a huge iucreas© luul b6eu nxacle in this tariff, from 88 to 215 articles, and consequently he contended this was a revenue tariff, and would produce largo suras in future. Ho stated that while at Homo _ tho Premier said ho would, if a resident iu England, bo found fighting on the side of free food, but hero ho was fighting for dear food, and wou-d not take the duty off flour. Ur Wilford, referring to the flour duty, said lie regretted that it had not been carried, as if it had been it would have been a great benefit to consumers, and he believed'in taking off the duty from tho necessaries or life. He [felt the constant demand for increased wages by the workers was duo to the high pi'ico or foodstuffs.

The House adjourned at 5.30. The House resumed at 7.30. r Mr Hogg complimented the Minister on the Tariff Bill, and acknowledged that it was a great improvement on the old tariff. Ho regretted, however, when the sugarduty was abolished that the Oovernmeut did not go further and take the opportunity of sweeping away the duties on wheat, flour, potatoes, and fruit. In 1901 the value of wheat exported was £370,111, in 1906 it was £9915, Did that show that the wheat grown -was progressing under the taxation of wheat and flour? Did the farmer get the benefit of the duty on wheat and flour? After the harvest he received the same price for his wheat as is paid in Australia. Who was holding the wheat and regulating the prices now? Not the farmer, but the gram merchant. The grain merchant and the flour miller were the middlemen, dividing the spoil between them. The farmer was not “in the swim.” He often sold his wheat to tiie merchant before it was grown. He got 3s last harvest for his wheat, and now the grain merchant was requiring 4s 6d to 4s 9d per bushel. Every year New Zealand consumers paid £150.000 more for the flour used than they would pay if they lived in Australia. The difference on flour was 80s to 35s per ton. He wanted £loo,ooo—the amount that went into the millers’ banking account—to remain in the pockets of the people. MrSFlsher expressed the hope that the Minister would bring down a Bill this session to deal with shoddy goods. ~ . The debate was proceeding when the Telegraph Office closed.