NEW TARIFF.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 August 1922, Page 5

NEW TARIFF.

TREATY WITH AUSTRALIA. L DEBATE IN THE HOUSE SECOND READING OF BILL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. ■ Wellington, Last Night. In the House to-day the Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Minister of Customs) moved the second reading of the Tariff Agreement (New Zealand and Austrttlia) Ratification Bill. The Minister expressed gratification at the reception generally accorded to the Bill. He would not speak at length, but two points needed reference. Firstly, regarding articles outside the special selected list, it was not considered advisable, after having gone very fully into the whole matter, to make another special schedule. Touching on the position of manufacturers of confectionery, the Minister said a reasonable amount of importation under a moderate tariff would avert the fate that befell Australian manufacturers. When a high tariff was imposed British manufacturers came and put up their own works and practically swamped the local firms. Referring to motor car bodies he said a small fixed duty was imposed last year and there had been no competition so far from Australia. New Zealand builders, he pointed out, got many materials free of duty, while Australian builders had to pay on these. Referring to oats the Minister said the interested people in Christchurch asked that tne duty should be retained and since then the Southland growers had asked if a reduction of the Australian duty could be secured, as they could take advantage of the Australian market. They were quite willing to face Australian ’ competition in years when Australia had good crops. He thought the best plan would be for the House to ratify the agreement in globo, leaving it open for any special items on which an amendment was desirable, to be settled by subsequent negotiation. One of the principal items on which Australia desired freer entry into New Zealand was dried fruit. This was desired in order to get over competition from Smyrna and other Levantine countries, where cheap labor was available. Any attempt at this stage, however, to modify the agreement would imperil the whole measure.

SOME ITEMS OPPOSED. I Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said New Zealand could not disregard the fact that where goods now are dealt in as between New Zealand and Australia the result must be generally to the disadvantage of New Zealand. Mr. Wilford feared that under the proposed tariff Australian woollen and textile manufacturers would be able to undersell New Zealand manufacturers in the Dominion. New Zealand ought at least to adopt the same tariff thereon towards Australia as Australia does to Britain. He commended the bargain made in regard to timber, hut he hoped New Zealand’s own requirements in the matter of local woods would be fully conserved. He thought New Zealand agricultural implement makers would benefit under the tariff. , The Hon. E. P. Lee thought the agreement generally advantageous to New Zealand, and, he pointed out, did not interfere with the Dominions powers to prevent dumping. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) said New Zealand manufacturers were up against high duties and massed production in Australia. Company taxation in the Dominion also seriously affected the manufacturer’s position to such an extent that if he wanted to compete in the Australian market combined tax- ' ation and duties amounted to as much as 33 1-3 per cent. He contrasted instances of Australian and New Zealand duties in various items in winch the former were on an average 50 per cent.

111 The Minister interjected that Mr. Sidey was mistaken. Most of the items he quoted were on the same level of duties both ways. . e m Mr. Sidey instanced complaints from woollen mills and soapmakers in Dunedin regarding the effects of the new tariff on their operatione. They were also airaid of the dumping of Australian goods on the New Zealand market Australia, he was sure, would reap by far the greatest benefit from the new agreement. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) said that as a representative of a farming district he was bound to say agricultural interests had been sacrificed to secondary interests. At the same time he did not feel he was competent to discuss the details of the pronosals, and therefore he proposed to move that the second reading of the Bill be postponed and that it be referred to a special committee which should take evidence and report to the House in a few days.

PREMIER PRAISES TREATY. Mr. Massey twitted Mr. McCallum with being the leader of the new Opposition. He considered the treaty was an excellent one, and we ought not to endanger it by delay. Mr. McCallum had not given a single reason for delay. He had said the treaty was against the farmer, but the fact wn* that, if it favored anyone, that one was the farmer. He favored treaties within the Empire, but he could not say they had all been a success. Several attempts to frame treaties with Australia had failed, and this was the first time we had got something to whieh we could agree. So far as he had seen, it had been favorably received all over the country, and he hoped it would not be long before it was signed bv the Governor-General. It was not possible that all the items would meet with unanimous approval, but his advice was to pass the treaty and then let the Ministers of Customs in the two countries negotiate on these items. He felt the treaty would do much to promote trade with Australia, and tend to remove that feeling of soreness which existed for some time. He Eelt we were only doing justice to Australia by admitting her wines on the same terms as South African. He utterly disagreed with Mr. Wilf’ord’s suggestion that a Tariff Board be set up. It simply meant we would be paying three high salaries to men who could do no better than the present Customs officers, who were amongst the best in the Empire. Moreover, it was government by a board, to which Mr. Wilford so frequently objected.

He did not know whether we could do much trade with Australia in butter and cheese, fieri it was right to try, because no doubt our article was better than theirs. The export of oats should be encouraged by the concession obtained by the treaty, because we had a surplus and Australia could take them with advantage. He enumerated other items which would be tamrtMA )a. _ ttagslMßMUi'

importance was the admission of our agricultural implements to Australia duty free. He strongly recommended the House to accept the treaty, which had been approved of by all sections in the country. Mr. McCallum’s amendment was lost on the voices. The Minister then briefly replied. He denied Mr. Statham’s allegation that the Minister could alter the treaty without reference to Parliament. Changes could only be made by Order-in-Council, and these orders must be. laid before the House. The treaty would come into force on a day to be arranged, and would be proclaimed. The Bill was then read a second time.

DISCUSSION IN AUSTRALIA. NO PROTEST RECEIVED. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright, deceived Aug. 3, 8.30 p.m. Melbourne, Aug. 3. In the House of Representatives, Mr. Rodgers said, in reply to a question, that he had no objection to laying the correspondence between Australia and New Zealand upon the proposed reciprocity treaty before Parliament, with reservation that he w’ould not place before the House anything which, in his judgment, would jeopardise the agreement. He added that he had received no protest against the ratification of the agreement, but there had been some communications to him jk - j