THE RECIPROCITY TREATY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81846, 13 September 1906, Page 2

THE RECIPROCITY TREATY

CABLE NEWS.' UNITED PHESS ASSOCIATION -Br ELEGTIiIC TELEOfIAFtf,—COI'YBIOHT. i

BEFORE THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT. A MIXED RECEPTION Received Vi, 11.36 pm Mbuioueke, September 12. The House of Representatives is ooq. sidermg the reciprocity treaty w.th New Zealand. In committee, Mr Dea kin pointed out that being a treaty it Kmust be accepted or rejected as a whole. Amendments could not be made without the assent of New Zea land. He thought they should vote on the resolution as a' whole. If the House came to the conclusion that some duties were injurious to the Commonwealth, that they ought to be set aside, the treaty ought still to be accepted, only on definite conditions that these changes were made, If the House would almost unanimously ac. coptthe treaty, then if the majority - was of opinion that any particular item should be altered, there might be added a recommendation to the Government of New Zealand. On the whole, he thought the treaty a fair bargain, and if it were not quite fair to Australia he would be inclined to vote for it as tho beginning of reciprocal trade be. tween ithe town countries. If the House decided to ask for certain alterations, it would be necessary also to consider what further concessions should be made to New Zealand. It was a well balanced treaty. He had asked the Customs' Department the effect on the revenue, and was informed it was a very difficult matter to estimate, but taking a normal year's trade, it was thought the treatp would mean an increase of revenue. The Depart. ment considered that the channels of **■ trade alter slowly, and meantime extra revenue would be received to the extent of one hundred thousand yearly, or even higher. That was a tentative and approximate estimate Under the New Zealand treaty, duties were in some case |raised against Britain, but the latter was - given concessions under the special proposals submitted last week. He concluded that any amendment would be fatal to the treaty Mr Glyrn declared the wrone principle was being followed. In every other part of tho world, countries reduced duties against eaoh other working towards the ideal of freetrade between them,

Sir John Quick strongly objected to any alteration of tho duties on candles, timber,, grain, or fodder. Tbo first two should stand till the Tariff Commission reported on them. As for grain and fodder, he opposed the p#d. tection of Australian farmers being taken away. He could not see how the Oregon timber would benefit NW /jealand. •

■Mr Deahn interjected that Mr Seddon regarded that item as most important.

'Mr J. Quick declared that Oreean was used for purposes for which New Zealand was unsuitable. MrDeakinsaidMr Seddon was of opinion that New Zealand timber eould take the place of much that was now used.

Sir J. Quick thought Mr Seddon made a mistake. .

Mr towards pointed oat that the general effect of the treaty «as to .give increased protection to manufactur-'

Mr. Thomas declared it was disguised protection. He would vote against the whole proposal Mr McCall objected to the treaty being submitted now. Ii had waited or three years, and could not suffer from delay till next session. It wag a mongrel production.

lieceiyed 13th, 1.31 a.m. nr , t Mblbo '»nb / September 12. Mr McLean though an ardent advocate of preference could not see the advisability of raising dutiek. against all the rest of tbU'EmpirT"' except New Zealand. Under the ' treaty, farmers had to make all the sacrifices, and manufacturers gained all the advantages. Mr Deakin suggested that a vote be aken first on the question whether the treaty bo ratified. If such action was not agreed to, it would be waste of time to consider details. He was willing that the treaty be liimtod to twelvemonths; that would enable the next Parliament to re-consider the whole matter. Meantime the House could consider what amendments, if any, were wanted and New Zealand would do the same.