FEDERATION COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 53, 4 March 1901, Page 2

FEDERATION COMMISSION.

THE AUCivLAXD SESSION

The Federation Commission commenced its Auckland session this morning at the Municipal buildings. Colonel Pitt (chairman) presided, ana the other members present were: me Hon. C. C. Bowen, and Messrs. John lioberts, J. A. Millar, M.H.lJ.,H.l3eaucharnp, C. Luke, T. W. Leys, and .J.>. lteid. Two of the members, Alajoi Steward, MJLB., and Captain Uussell, Ai.ii.lv., have not yet arrived. Mr Morice l''ox acted as secretary, and Messrs. VV. 11. itiwaell and It. I*. Thomson as reporters to the Commis-

The Hon. William Rolleston, thft first witness called, in answer to questions, stated that he had been lor many rears a member of the colonial Legislature and v Cabinet Minister. He had expressed his ideas on Lmpenerial and Australian federation in a paper which he hud handed in. to llie Commission. In his paper, which was read by the secretary. Mr. Holiest on said the federation of the Empire must be a matter of gradual development. lne maintenance of local independence and autonomy, together with the promotion of v closer alliance with the Mother Country, were the great principles to be kept in view in helping forward the growth of the Imperial tie. They must be satisfied with establishing common bonds of union from time to time, as occasion arose. So far, however, no suggestion of a practical character had been made which would bring- federation under the Imperial Parliamentary system, or make it a mechanical union. Representation on the Board of Trade suggested itself as a step towards dealing with the common interests of trade, and on a council in connection with the War Department, for dealing with the common obligations of Imperial defence. As to the establishment of an Australian Commonwealth, including New Zealand, he could not (rive an unqualified opinion. A mutual federal tie, but without any surrender of local autonomy, would be of mutual advantage to Australia and New Zealand, lie could not believe that as between these two the common interests could not be regulated by commercial treaty. Federation in that sense he regarded as a most desirable thing1. Under the Federal Act, when ouce the central power was instituted, the tendency would be in the- direction of overriding the local Governments by the Federal authority. Lord Tennyson, in South Australia, and Sir Henry Norman both seemed to be impressed with that danger. The mixed system of finance under which the States and the Commonwealth dipped their hands into the same purse would have the tendency to promote conflict between the local and Federal Government, and the central power would be likely to prevail. Federation should rather he the delegation by groups of States of some of their common functions to a, centra] power, as occasion arose, than the constitution of a central authority, with powers of overruling and absorbing the legislation and administration of the States. Australasian federation would not necessarily be a step to Imperial federation, and he could imagine circumstances under which it might lead to an opposite Jesuit. Imperial,: federation would only'sufl'er by any attempt to draw The bonds too closely, or to deal with subjects other than those of the largest magnitude, such as common defence. The effect of intercolonial free trade 'upon our manufactures was hard to estimate. It might lead to our industries being seriously affected by competition witti Australian goods. The effect, upon our export of farm produce was equally hard to foresee. Those were points upon which they ought to have the best information which could have been collected by commercial and financial experts, lie did not see what advantage would accrue to Australia by political federation with this colony. He had no belief we should be better represented in the Federal Parliament. The settler class would be less and less represented, and the influence of wealth and speculation—potent I'aotors in the decay of democracy—.would assert itself to an extent hitherto unknown.

In answer to questions by Colonel Pitt, the Hon. William Uolleston said that when he slated "our attitude towards federation was one of indifference," he was speaking rather of the attitude of the Legislature of this colony. Upon the attitude the Australian Legislatures had taken he could hardly express an opinion. In his opinion the result of New Zealand joining the federation would be that this colony would bo in a, minority in the Commonwealth Parliament, and the general tendency of the Commonwealth Legislature as constituted under the Federal Act would be to override ultimately the powers of the separate States. Of course New Zealand at the distance it was from Australia would/be more prejudicially affected by that tendency than would the- Australian States. lie thought the State Governments would drop in importance, and he did not see that that would be an advantage. Local legislation would be liable to be superseded a great deal by a central Legislature. As to the effect of federation upon the revenue of the colony, ha concurred with the views which had been expressed before the Commission by Mr. Allen. He had no sympathy with the feeling that federation would raise the minds of the people to a higher plane. lie did not feel quali* fied to speak on the question of coloured labour in Australia. Speaking generally on the, subject of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, he would not approve of any Act which limited the right of a British subject to appeal to the highest court of the Empire; He advocated the establishment of a federal tie rather than the surrender of local autO7iomy. By a federal tie lie meant a tie established rather by treaty and common concert than by Parliamentary union. He thought our locy.l autonomy would undoubtedly be surrendered if we joined the Commonwealth. He advocated a reciprocal tariff between. Australia and New Zealand. He thought that was the object to be aimed at, and that it would be the outcome of com-mon-sense dealing between the Coin* monwealth and New Zealand.

To Mr. Leys: He did not. think a popular vote was altogether a satisfactory solution of questions regarding the constitution. He had no doubt that the Commonwealth Government would Tiltimatcly take ov % er the railways. The fact of the Commonwealth taking over our customs and excise would very decidedly interfere with New Zealand's power to borrow

money for its own development, and we might thus be restricted in our power t& develop our own resources?. He thought it not unlikely there would be a loss of administrative efficiency in the departments taken over by the Commonwealth Government. He was afraid the relations between that Government, and the State Gov* ermnents would be the game as between the bid General and Provincial Governments in New Zealand. To Mr. Luke: The whole schema was more or less speculative, .but hedid not think there was a danger of our becoming contracted in our ideas if we kept out of the Commonwealth. To Mr. Heauchamp:. lie would advocate Imperial federation or the establishment of a zollverein in preference to an Australasian federation. The present securities were sufficient for borrowing purposes. The question of Xew Zealand's agricultural produce was scarcely one that would last very long. Australia's_ production would soon overtake its own wants, except in seasons of drought. He hoped in future to see the closest community of interests between Australia and New Zealand; it was only a question of time and common sense. The State Governments would be liable io deterioration under federation. To Mr. Boweil: The Imperial interjest was undoubtedly to have two powers in this part of the world rather 1 than one. To Colonel Pitt: His objection to , New Zealand joining the Commonwealth was not based on its not joining as an original State. Dr. Richard Laishley, barrister and solicitor, said he had given, considerable attention to the question of federation. As far as his information went '■ he thought the balance of arguments: against .New Zealand federating- were overwhelming. The first serious objection was the irrevocable nature of the compact; then Ilk1 ignoble surrender of our' independence came in. Although nominally there were certain rights reserved to the State, yet practically there wore none reserved, for under the Act the paramount power was placed in the hands of the Federal Parliament. Apart from that, (he number of our representatives would be insignificant; that must result: practically in our submersion. We were not on the name basis as other States, being remote and insular in geographical position, and our wants would be largely unknown to the largo majority of members from the Australian constituencies. This isolation would tend to the deterioration oE representatives, as we could only send capitalists or professional politician.*, and further the constituencies would be largely out of touch with their members. Practically' by federating we gave up our power of government. Again, there were large internal undertakings looming up in Australia, which were perfectly valueless to New Zealand, but to which we should have to eon tribute very largely. The secjond objection was that the free trade to which we won hi be a party would |do us great harm. We should have to compete against cheaper rates, larger j capital, cheaper labour, longer hour.-;, I increased facilities of transit, all I which would enable goods to bo brought into New Zealand at rates with which we could not compete. The j third consideration was the cash loss [to New Zealand, vvhich he estimated | about £;>l."),()(j(). made up of loss of j Customs, contribution to the Common-

wealth, and the internnl works in Australia. He thought •federation would result in increased taxation and ;i higher price for commodities impurt'od to New Zealand. The fourth consideration whs tin; abolition of tlic .Privy Council uppoul. The fifth objection would be the Maori question involved. The argument that the Commonwealth could borrow more cheuply than Xew Zealand was entirely irrelevant, sls the pooling of debts was antively barred by the Act. There would probably be a new direct taxation against land to make uj> the £315,060; there would ii^o probably be a, fall ir« land values, and an increased cost of living-. The three main arguments in favour of federation —a protective tariff, defence, and alliance with a grent Commonwealth—were lie thought largely orerweighed by the urgaiments contra.

To Col. T'itt: In saying that workers Quid longer hours in Australia he was not speaking- of his own knowledge, but from information received by the workers themselves.

Peter Virtue, manager of the Northern Kollcr Milling1 Company, said he had been thirty-two years in the ooli ony. In his opinion it was not to the interests of the colony to federate with the "Commonwealth, but he thought a reciprocal tariff would worl< admirably. This colony had shipped to Australia a large amount of produce, some times owing to drought there, and more often to over-produc-tion \fr New Zealand. Jf the bulk of the New Zealand merchants were asked if ■Jiiey had benefited finnneiajll.y by shipping" to Australia-during the last fifteen years he thought he would be quite safe in anticipating their reply by answering ".No." New South Wale's four years ago was importing wheat, flour, produce, etc. Now she was exporting, practically closing her doors to our produce. His experience of consigning produce to New SotitU Wales and Queensland over a period of fifteen years was a disastrous one, When a drought occurred in Australia supplies poured in from all quarters, causing a. glut and reducing prices to below cost. Moreover, there was nothing more deceptive than a weather market. Again, the Australian farmers had certain advantages in the shape of. water and land carriage to their shipping ports which our New Zealand farmers did not enjoy- He thought our railage rates oil produce were excessive. ,For instance, a ftft.y mile JVew Zealand railuge on whea J was threepence per bushel., and. they could bring the same article from the Bluff, to Auckland or send to Sydney f6r less. .In repjy. to the argument that the New Zealand farmers' yield of wheat, etc., per acre was much larger, it could be, painted out that the New Zealand farmer's land cost him considerably more per acre than the Australian's. Australia's five large, ports were au inducement for ships from all parts of the world seeking employment to make for any of .the ports (more particularly Newcastle and Sydney), knowing that there would always be a load for somewhere. Thai; at once put Australia far , ahead of New Zealand in securing lower rates of freight for either wheat, flour, produce, wool, tallow, etc. New Zealand Was all front, side and back doors, with heavy port and vessels would ne.ver come seeking this way.

As regarded the coal and timbe? trades, if a cheap timber freight could be relied upon (without Hooding our market witn. coals) it would assist in meeting- a tariff, if the latter wore imposed upon New Zcaiand timber by Australia. In answer to questions Mr Virtue said federation would not assist the milling industry in New Zealand. With intercolonial free trade be would anticipate strong competition between this colony and Australia., Speaking generally on the question of federation, he Thought this colony could ge'J along very well without federationJames Park, manager of the OnehLinga Woollen .\iills, said he had been .seventeen years in New Zealand. His opinion of federation, as affecting the woollen trade was that we were better us we were. Mew Zealand mills could not compete with the Australian so long as the latter manufactured shoddy so largely. If the woollen made in Australia were all as pure as the New Zealand our mills could easily hold their own. In his experience Australian workers in the woollen trade were in much the same condition as New Zealanders as regarded comfort, but the Xew Zealand workers were considerably better paid. The manufacture of "shoddy" was very detrimental to the general,public There was no demand for "shoddy" in New Zealand at present, but if important it might attvad by its cheapness. Throughout New Zealand the woolle^ mills were in a prosperous condition, j Arthur Cecil Whitney, manager of the Colonial Ammunition Company, at Mount Eden, said the company supplied ammunition to the New Zealand (Joveriiment. They had an establishment, in Australia. If .New Zealand federated the local works would pro- ! bably be given up and the mamifaej tur<? confined to Australia, as labour was cheaper there. That was supposing the company had a. free hand. There would be a certain amount of. risk in supplying New Zealand from Australia in war time. Another disadvantage would be the loss of the industry 1o New Zealand. They employed from S") to 101 hands at tho j Auckland factory, according to requirements, To Mr Roberts: It was possible Ilia! | federation might equalise the cost of | Inborn- as between this colony and ! Australia-

(Proceeding.)