RECIPROCITY WITH AUSTRALIA.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81837, 1 September 1906, Page 2

RECIPROCITY WITH AUSTRALIA.

DISCUSSION ON PROPOBED TREATY. AUSTRALIAN COMMENT. Sydney, August 31. The "Telegraph" Bays the impropriety of submilting Buch important legislation as the taking over of the State debts and New Zealand and the British reciprocity at this tome, when the doors of Parliament are swinging to, is obvious. A sincere, reasonable opportunity cannot be given for doubtful consideration. Under the New Zealand treaty, the tariff on New Zealand oats has been reduced, as has also the New Zealand duty, on Australian sugar. Those two sets of producers are benefited,, but for every such two there are dozens who are comparatively disadvantaged, since they are not in the reciprocity schedule, and thjafr market has. not been enlarged. tends to make trade freer is welcome, but the effect of limited reciprocity, all the same, is to bring the penalties of protection more clearly into no- - tice. As it is, the matter is purely a commercial' one, and Australian -. and New Zealand people are no more" .ikcly to come closer together because of reciproqity in a few duties than they would be to regard eacli other as foreigners if the tariffs remained as indiscriminating as they were. The "Herald" says: "What Mr Deakin's speech apparently meant was that he is seeking to makelhis 'small trading agreement with New _ Zealand the means of getting in the ' thin end of the wedge of preferential trade on Mr Chamberlain's lines. The two matters are, however, quite distinct. Mr Deakin is dreaming, but Mr Seddon had in view a coldly practical, businesslike bargain. The nature of that bargain is simple en« ough, in spite of Mr Deakin's attempts to obscure it. The fact of the matter is that the late drought forced us to acknowledge it possible that these Eastern. States may find themselves short of fodder and other like commodities during seasons of drought, and for that reason a and taught by the high prices we had to pay for New Zealand produce under Federal taxation, we are asked to make this agreement, in so far as it concerns these and reciprocal items of trade. It remains to be' seen whether the agriculturists of the Commonwealth, taxed heavily as they are at the Customs, will consent to' open their marekt to New Zealand in order to satisfy Mr Deakin."

OPINION AT THIS END. ADVERSE CRITICISM. A Per Press Association. • Wellington, August .31. Interviews by "Post" reporters, with prominent business men regarding the reciprocal proposals show an absence of approval of the suggested revision. The general opinion is that New Zealand will have the worst of the bargain. Auckland, August 31.. At a meeting of grain merchantsit was resolved to protest against the Reciprocity Tariff, especially asregards products, and it was declared that if it" was carried into effect.* it would ruin the farming industry of the colony. Strong exception was taken to flour being admitted, .«* free. Dunedin, August 31. ' Local millers are indignant over/ the reciprocity agreementj, which they say will shut up- eyejy mill in the colony." On August 16th Mr P. Virtue, manager of the Northern Roller Mills, Auckland, anticipating the proposed repeal of the duty on Australian flour, wrote under the heading, "What would be the position if the duty on flour were removed?" inter alian as follows: —"Up this way the seriousness would not he quit? so apparent as in the South. • For instance, duty free flour would_,> mean the shutting down of all'flour"" mills, thus throwing a large number out of employment. No wheat would be grewn, as it does not pay to ship to London, being to far away, and having to rely on cheap casual freights. Our coaj mines would suffer considerably, farm lacroppers, and threshers, with numerous teams of horses, would have to go seeking. The railway revenue would suffer to such an extent by shrinkages that-' all classes of rates throughout the Colony would have to be increased to fill the gap; and what about the railway employee—would ho not suffer.? "Australian wheat-growing • land is very cheap compared to ours, and the Australian railway tariff on grain is about 30 per cent, lower than ours, so we must be careful. Australia's exportable surplus, 1004 and igos, was 3,000,000 quarters.; New Zealand's . exportable surplus was 500,000 quarters."