The Daily News. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3. PROPOSED RECIPROCITY TREATY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81838, 3 September 1906, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3. PROPOSED RECIPROCITY TREATY.

THE proposed reciprocal treaty with Australia, the terms of which were published last week, is causing' considerate interest amongst the commercial community. The chief value of the treaty seems to bo in the recognition of a principle—that ot establishing and cultivating freer trade- with Australia. This principle the late Mr. Seddon, who was responsible for framing the treaty, seems to have striven for. He recognised, as he acknowledged in his last message to New Zealand, thai( the whole question was beset with great difficulties, but he had done his best in the interests of the colony. Having the same seasons and producing practicaly the same commodities, the difficulty of establishing a reciprocal treaty benefiting both the parties thereto is apparent, and Mr. Seddon did well, we must confess, to accomplish even what he did.

* * * * It would have been a comparatively easy matter to have concluded, for ' instance, a treaty with Canada, or even South Africa, because the conditions are not so similar as those obtaining in respect to both this colony and Australia. Then we could have facilitated the export of commodities we had plenty and to spare, and in return could have imported articles we have now to pay 'through the nose'' for. Looking into the schedule to the treaty, however, it seems that even if the treaty is ratified, neither country will lose or gain very substantially. Sir Joseph Ward said that he was not in a position to estimate the loss'* f revenue which this colony would suffer from the proposed changes, but on the basis of last year's figures New Zealand would lose .£4407 and the Commonwealth .£6126. But with restrictions removed and freer trade, e-stab lished, under the proposed preference the volume of trade would increase material;', and what the tariff alterations would mean to either partycan therefore only be-estimated with uncertainty.

* * * * The two main items mentioned in tbe preference schedule of concern to this country are sugar and flour. Both, it is proposed, are to be admitted free. The trtil import of sugir from Australia last year amounted to but £IO7O, the duty thereon being £"220,. On the other hand, we received from Fiji approximately £500,000 worth, the revenue received being /J55.000. If we impose -Jd per lb duty on the Fijian ankle it means that we in . future will draw our supplies from Austra'ia. Anyway, this vriM be no serious hnnrti •ap, if we gel th- benefit of the id in buying this pirt of the "breakfast •able" at 2J instead of 2id p»r lb In other words we, will lose approxi untely i'lS.i.Of 0 hi duty, and save Hi.same amount by getting the sugar ore cheaply—or, rather, we should lo so if the sugar company concerned iocs i s duty. Auckland refinery vorls will he closed dewn, and 2iM icn thrown out of work. The lolonial S igir Company, which has ■radically a monopoly of the colonial ngar business, w.isld simply transfer Is works to Australia, and draw 011 fiieensland and Fi|inn supplies. Boiled down, the effect of the removal of the duty on sugar would he to transfer the id from one pocket to the other, and lose (he Auckland works as a source of employment for 300 hands. • * * *

''in: millers of the country are up 111 arms against the proposal to aAm't Australian flour free, the effect of vh'ch course they say will close all the aids of the colony :md prejudically iff ct (he growers. Anslralia 'las chiap grain-groiiiug land, proluces 01. the whole a belter quality, r.d i-i o-<: nary seasons lmi al vays a •on I'cr.i) c quantity (last year it mmunted to over three million quirer ) available for export. Consenicnlly there is some gtound tor Up •ichef expressed by the niil ■ rs that the removal of the duty will affect the 1 seriously, though hardly to the extent of closing up their establishments, hilst the removal woull be an advantage to the public, it would be a serious impost on Hie grain-growers, .vho are taxed through the [ciistims, and in this way contribute to the up keep of oar pio'.ccted local industries.

! * * * * We wiuld J-avc teei bitter pleasei uiid the duty on ]v tat >cs at tip's end >ecn removed. At present potatoes ire scarce and dear. Australian tubers could be landed lure to the advantage )f the consumer but for the 20 per .•cnt. duly. The removal of this duty is necessary, and it is a pity potatoes ivere not f.ut on the free list, It appears strange, too, that while we place sueli commodities as flour and sugar on the free list, Australia in turn admits none of our staple articles free, though in some, reductions in the amount of duty ltaye been made. The treaty has been referred to a committie of the House, jyjjoso report will be awaited with interest. In its present form we do not think I lie proposals will meet with, general approval on this side of the Tasnun.