THE REPROCITY TREATY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81847, 14 September 1906, Page 3

THE REPROCITY TREATY.

DISCUSSION IN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT. AN AMENDMENT DEFEATED. Received 13th, 10.59 p.m. Melbourne, September 13. Speaking 00 the Treaty debate, M \\ihi» said while Britain was taxmj her people fifteen times higher thai Australians were taxed, to providi funds f r the navy to protect Aus trahan trade, the Commonwealtl round and prohibited the im portation of British goods. N< treaty with New Zealand would bi acceptable 'unless it provided fre< trade between the two countris. Mr Joseph Cook moved an amend ment, "That while affirming the de •irability of a commercial treaty witl New Zealand, the House requests tli; Prime Minister to endeavour to nego tiate a treaty covering a wider rangi of duties, and confining preference ti mutual reduction of existing duties.' Mr Deakin explained that at the be ginning they considered the question whether it was possible to mak< aa agreement of a general character, or whether they should limit themselves to particular items. Mr Sed don said he was not prepared to makt any proposals of a general character, and that the only proposals that were practical were those which dealt with items. Then they took the New Zealand and Commonwealth tariffs, and the proposals now made repre sented those items upon which thej were able to agree. Mr Cook said Mr Seddon had been so long in control of New Zealand that he had ceased to fo.low the cur rents of public opinion, but created currents for himself and for others to foUowr- The fact that to -much opposition had"been raised in New Zealand to the treaty showed that Mi Seddon's opinion did not correspond with the mat'Urcr judgment of the people there. The matter had never been considered by commercial men in New Zealand, and Mr Seddon had all through sought to get more protection for his colony than to cultivate relations with Australia. Received 13th, 11.25 P-m. Melbourne, September 13. Mr Joseph Cook continued that no consideration had been given to the Empire, apart from" New Zealand. Canada had already ottered reciprocity. The Government should have informed Canada of the New Zealand treaty. Mr Deakin stated that at the time Canada made the offer he communicated, but had not yet received any reply from Canada. ' Mr Cook pointed out that Canad; ian products were much more heaviiy , taxed. The treaty would divert more trade from British places than it was possible to divert to British places under the other preferential trade pro Posals. There thus would be a net Joss to Britain. Australia was to scoretundeT both the British and New Zealand duties by increased protection. That was not displaying the •pint of self-sacrifice which ought to animate them in endeavouring to foster Empire trade. Mr Deakin declared the carrying of the amendment would be fatal to the treaty, and introduce a new principle of confining preference to reduction of existing duties. Mr Cook's proposal was illusory. The House was asked for an undefined one. It would prevent any begin ning being made for closer trade relations. Had Mr Seddon b4Cn alive to put his full v.ews on the subject from the Australian point of view, there would have been little difficulty in getting New Zealand to accept it. Mr Cook said that Sir Joseph Ward was an able business man, and had put the matter very fully the New Zealand Parliament. Mr Deakin said Sir Joseph Ward bad not had the advantage of becoming acquainted with Australian views, and the difficulties in the way of arranging a treaty different to the present one. Protectionists could not accept any other principle regarda ing duties than that embodied in the present treaty. Received 14th, 12.4 a.m. - Melbourne, September 13. Mr Kennedy supported the treaty. Mr Johnson and Mr Knox opposed the timber duties. Mr Kelly said the Government was debasing Imperial sentiment for the benefit of manufacturers. , After further discussion Mr Cook's amehdme nt was rejected by 32 to 11. » The debate is proceeding.