PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 18 September 1907, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. »' HOUSE OF EEPEESETATIVES. 'U' (By Telegraph —Per Press Association), o Wellington, Last Night. i The House met at 2.30. ° Four days' leave of absence was T granted Mr T. MaeKenzie on account of * urgent public business. : THE TARIFF. * The Hon. Mr Millar, in moving the i third reading of the Tariff Bill, s '.id ' there were two governing principles guiding the Government in framing this tariff. The first and foremost was the ■ taking off of the duties on the neces- ' saries of life, and on articles that could not he manufactured in the colony, and there was the encouragement to our

ociil industries. Some members ap- IJ ion red to think th'it the encouragement . if our industries was of littile account, rat he thought they would agree that , n such a country as this, with tlio r imonnt of agricultural land available, ' ;hat they must take these industries land in 'hand with their agricultural pursuits. They were aware of exactly liow many me.n could be settled on the laudti of the colony. Xney were met with the statement that this colony wanted population, an it had been advocated by many cJi:-.t v. ought to go in for an immigration iolky, but what was the good of doin» tli.'.t unless they had work for them wii-.'ii 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, and increased the national indebtedness on the others. He said that under the tariff assistance had been granted to forty industries. He claimed that in a few years they would see a large increase of employment in these industries. He contended that in future this country would be a. large manufacturing country, as we had the raw material—copper, tin, ironstone, and unlimited water power running to waste. It was stated that they were pUicii. 6 a. tax on the farming community, but lie maintained that not one penny of increased taxation had been phecd on the farming industry. He maintained that every effort should be made to provide work for other portions of the population, and the tariff submitted had that cud in view. Continuing his remarks on the farming industry, the Minister read. a. statement showing the duty on farming implements in force in the Commonwealth and Canada, by which he showed that farming implements in these two countries were taxed ten times as much as they were in New Zealand. Proceeding, he read a tabulated statement of the farm produce of the colony, which were protected by a tax on similar commodities imported from other countries. These figures, he contended, were a direct reply to statements which had been made that the Government was unduly taxing the farming industry of the colony, in regard to the mining industry, tie contended that only two articles were , taxed, and that at a small figure of . 5 por cent. Under the Act of 1900, i it was provided that machinery foi ■ mining purposes was admitted free, but under this heading mining companies ' had claimed the right to import everything used in a miae, even if used for general purposes, free of duty. In fact, he added, they had gone so far as . to claim the right to import brooms for sweeping purposes free, whilst all ■ other industries had to pay 5 per cent, i Mr James Allen said they were all i in favor of assisting local industries, i but differed in the manner of granting 1 assistance. He contended that a blow ■ had been Btruck at the mining and ' farming industries, which were inctige- , nous to the country, in the attempi to assist other industries which wen not in'digenous to the country. Pro . ceeding, he granted reductions had fieeri . granted in foodstuffs. Referring .tc , Mr Millar's remarks, he contended thai i no one could say how many they' were , a.ble to settle on the land. Ho looked . forward to a huge settlement on tin r land. Ho did not think the time hac i arrived yet when we should go in foi helping the country from the town? 1 instead of from the country itself. He • contended that the Canadian duty or ' t farming implements meant nothing ex ' ccpt on paper, as they manufacturec all classes of firming implements ir Canada. He contended that farrainc implements had been free in this conn try since 1000, if not before, and tin • motion in 1900 was made by Mr Mas sey, also one for placing fencing win on the free list. In the face of this 1 lie contended that the present Govern ' mont had not placed farming iniple I ments on the free list. Ho agreed it [ was right to assist local industries sc [ long as wo did not injure any other in i dustry. He regretted that the Minis ; try was found in the wrong lobby when i the, question of granting free flour was ' considered. The Premier: YVncre was the Leadei

■ of the Opposition? Mr Allen: lie was there, too. ■• Continuing, Air Allen said there were other means of helping flour miffing ~c without Keeping this heavy duty on. Ho would have granted a subsidy, or , given thejm the amount realised by tlte J duty. He dcpreeatejl the heavy tax ~ on cheap hoots, as this placed a very 3 hoary burden" on tlie poorer people who ■ used cheap hoots. Under the present t tariff, a 5s boot cost 7s 3d, against Is i (iVl.jrt under the old tariff, but the man 1 who imported 309 boots got them for ■ 3(is, or ninepenee cheaper than under the old tariff. Continuing, he s.iic! he • understood as The'result of the Imperial Conference, it was intended to eneour- , ago trade'between England and the colony, but he' added that flic duty had ' boon increased on almost every article . imported from the Old Country. lie : contended mat because the colony could . could .not get preference in the Old ' Country, we had clapped on the duty on i almost all articles from the United Kingdom. The Premier had stated at the Imperial Conference that New Zealand admitted a large number of British manufactures free of duty. He (Mr Allen) had counted the items, and found there were oidy ten which were admitted free. Referring to the preference tariff, he said a huge increase had beonanade in this tariff, and would produce large sums in the future. Ho stated that while at Homo the Premier said he would, if resident in England, be found fighting on the side of free food, but here he was fighting for dear food arid would not tako the duty oir flour.

The Hob. McGowan contended that fr Allen had adopted the tactics of his sader in claiming credit for everything good" that had been done in the louse. Ho (Mr McGowan) claimei hat all the Government asked \va hat the tariff should he compared witi he tariff of any other country, anc f considered from that point of view t would be granted that it was t'h nost reasonable tariff over introduce! n New Zealand. Sir W. J. Steward claimed that t iim, not to Mr Massey, was due fh :vedit of initiating proceedings t ilace fencing wire on the free list. Mr Gray complained that assistunc lad not been granted to manufaetm wi of anhydrous ammonia. In 1901 ■onic o4(ili tons were imported, of whicl .083 tons were from New South Wale? Lo was informed by a New Zealanl nanufacturcr that ho was prepared fr upply o"i) per cent more than was im lortod in 1000. On these grounds, h Mr Gray) contended that assistanc hould bo given the industry. Mr Wilford, referring to the flou [uty, said he regretted it had not ,beei arried, as if it had been it would lwv icen a great benefit to the consumers Mi he believed in taking off the tint rom the necessaries of life. The firs tern to be considered should have beei he staple of life—bread. He con idercd the Government had done mue] or the people in taking the duly o) o many liceessaftes, but he urged tii ■finister for Customs not to rest 6i lis oars. Continuing, he said that li elt the constant demand for inereasei I'ages by the workers was due to tlr ligh prices of foodstuffs, and he conendrfd the Government had missed i ;rand chance of assisting the worker tficn they failed to take the duty oi [our. He urged on the Minister lha ie should keep an eye on the commo'3 ties frrtm which duty had been remov jd, fii order to see that the consumer recoivod. the benefit, He, particularl

urged on tho Minister to watch the operations of the Colonial Sugar Co., if they desired consumers to get the beneiit of the remission. I Xlio House adjourned at 5.30, and resumed at 7.30.

Mr Hogg complimented the Minister on the Tariff Bill. lie acknowledge? that it was a great improvement on"tho old tariff. He regretted, however, when the sugar duty was abolished,

that the Government did not go further and take the opportunity of sweeping away the duties on wheat, flour, pota- J toes ai«l fruit. He tried to get the duty removed from fruit, but was de- ( featcd. With regard to flour and , wheat, he fouiid that during the last_six , years, the colony had exported tnese , articles to the value of £025,374. They < had imported flour and wneat to the , value of £74,009, on which the duty i paijd wa's £BOOO. In 1001, the value lof wheat exported was £270,111 ;_ in 1900 it was £9015. Did that show

Ithat the wheat grown was progressing undor the taxation of wheat and flour? Did the farr.-r get the of tho duty on wheat and (lour? After harvest, he received the same price fpr this wheat as was paid in Australia. Who was holding wheat and regulating prices now? Not the farmer, but the grain merchant. The grain merchant and flour miller were middlemen dividing the spoil between t.'iem. Tho farmer was not in the swim. He often sold his wheat "to {Tie merchant before it was grown. ITe got 3s last harvest for his wheat, and now the grain mcr--1 chant was requiring 4s Gd to 4s Od per ' bushel from the flour miller.- Every 1 year in New Zealand consumers fpaijl £150,000 more for the flour used Ihi/a > they would pay if listed in Australia. 5 The difference on Hour was 39b to 35s ; per ton. Ho wanted £IOO,OOO, the ' amount that went into the millers' 1 ' banking account, to remain in the poc- ' kcts of tlie people. Abolish the duty " on flour, and the price woulfl ijtnmcdi--3 ately fall 20s per ton. The miller and ' grain mercuant would naturally suffer, ' but the f-vrmer, in company with tho • artisan, - arfiT""espccially the man with ! - the big family,'would be the gainer.. He; s nsusred- the flovovnmcnt that, come t what might, tile people would insist on f the removal of taxes now placed' on a the main articles ot food.

Mr Hornsby saiil "Mr James Allen's remarks regiirdinir. his iTcsiro to see tbe development of land and closer settlement were most remarkable, as the hon. member had \most consistently opposed every purchase of land by thi Government for closer settlement. Replying to Mr Allen's statement 'that Canada's tax on agricultural implements was meaningless, he twitted the member for Bruce with having forgotten the existence, next door to Canada, of the United States. He added that Canada's prosperity commenced with the inauguration of a protective policy by Sir John MacDonaui.

Mr Fisher oxpressed the. hope that I the Minister would bring 'down a Bill this session to deal with shoddy goods, as by doing so he would confer a boon on tho people. Mr W. Fraaer, replying to the statement mdo by Mr Hornsby, saifl it was true highly protected countries were able to sell manufactures at clieap rates, but that was only to outside countries. Ho contended that German manufacturers had two prices the cheaper one being for the sale of manufactures to foreign countries. Mr Poole said the United States were the most striking oxiymplc of prosperity that this country could set eyes on. He urged that we were going in the right direction in fostering local industries. Mr Flatman contendedi that if Hi; Hogg's suggestion to take the duty off flour had been carried, it would not benefit the producer, nor damage tne miller's association 1 . * Mr Hardy acknowledged that the country had never ha;d a Minister who filled! the position'of OihMtis anil La|bor so well as Mr Millar. He added that the tariff was a great improvement on the old tariff. Mr Laurenson said the tariff would, relieve every person on an average ot8s per head per annum, and the in-' creased tariff under the tariff would be' 3s per head. On this basis, he pointed, out that instead of a'lman with a Inr?e family suffering, the larger the family he had the more he wouM benefit, be' contended that a protective tariff would! not only benefit the workers in th« towns, but would be advantageous to every farmer and settler in the country. Mr Herries, referring to the increases in the tariff, said the only increases in machinery were connected with the land in some way or other. He complained that protection had been removed from farmers who went in for growine maize The result would be that maize from South Africa, grown by Kaffir labor, would come in to compete with maize grown by white labor. (Left Sitting).