FEDERATION COMMISSION

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 54, 5 March 1901, Page 5

FEDERATION COMMISSION

YESTERDAY AFTERNOON'S PROCEEDINGS. The Federation Commission resumed at 2.30 yesterday afternoon, Col. Pitt presiding. * A CLERGYMAN'S OPINION. The Rev. John C. Andrew, of Wairarapa, stated that he had been a member of the Wellington Provincial Council. He thought New Zealand was too far away to be politically united with Australia, and too small not to be overburdened in such a union. If we united with Australia we should have taken out of our hands problems which we could better determine by ourselves, including- the treatment of the native race. In point of defence we Would gain nothing by ! union. He would be sorry to see New Zealand federate with Australia. It would mean increased taxation in this colony. A FARMER'S VIEWS. William McLaughlin, farmer, Papatoitoi, said he had been 38 years in New Zealand, and was acquainted with Australia. He thought from an agricultural point of view New Zealand v^onld be better off without federating. In time of drought Australia must either take New Zealand produce or starve. He did not think federation would open n larger market to New Zealand produce, lie saw no advantage in federation. To Mr Leys: There was no prospect of a market for our produce in Australia, consequently the repeal of the duty would be of no benefit to our shippers. The division by sea was a very essential difference from division by land. Australians could talk about the various Australian States, but very little about New Zealand. THE BOOT TRADE. Thomas Hadfield. bootmaker, said he had formerly been for many years president of the local Bootmakers' Union. The prevailing feeling among the men was one of opposition to federation, because they were afraid of the tariff. II there were free trade between Australia and New Zealand he thought the bootmaking industry here might suffer because the manufacture was on a larger scale in Australia, though we had as good workmen and machinery. The boot trade in New Zealand was more affected by American importations than by Australian. As an industry, they might suffer a little by federation. He advocated watching results before this colony joined the Commonwealth. To Mr Leys: Australian boot manufacturers, working- on a larger scale and specialising, would doubtless be ready to compete with New Zealand manufacturers on the latter's own ground. He would like to see a uniform tariff amongst the various States of the Empire. As regarded labour Ipo-islation. he did not think New Zealand would suffer by federation through the present lower conditions of labour in New South Wales. He anticipated that the Federal Government would bring their labour legislation up to the level of that "adopted in New Zealand. He admitted that might take some time. To Mr Luke: The bootmaking trade in this colony was still a struggling one. Tt had 'not yet been capable of exporting to Now South Wales. Under federation that disability would not be removed. He was in favour of a reciprocal commercial treaty rather than federation, but he believed in every effort being put forth to promote a bond of brotherhood between the colonies. ' _ To Mr Beauchamp: The New Zealand boot trade was meeting with "■reat competition from America. ° To Mr Millar: He thought federation would be beneficial to New Zealand as a. whole, and that consequently -it would be beneficial to' the workers. He admitted New Zealand labour legislation was far in advance of Australian, but the proposed policy of tho Federal Government. in that respect was a liberal one. MR. SAMUEL VAILE. ■ Samuel Vaile, land agent, and" recently president of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, said he was thoroughly averse to New Zealand entering the Federation. The more he studied the question the more he was opposed to our federating. It would be a mistake to join the Confederacy from which we could hot retire without civil war. To federate would be to destroy our national life. New Zealand would scarcely be heard or thought of if we federated. We should .Mmply be a dependency of AustraliaAll power appeared to be taken out of our hands under the Federal Act, It would be a question of a very few years before our State Parliament under those conditions must cease to exist. As regarded the influence on our national life, the position between New Zealand and Australia was entirely different. In future years there would be a vast number of Australians within a. few hours' ride of the Federal capital, but where would New 'Zealand-1 ers bo? It seemed to him this colony would drift back in every way. We would stand little or no chance of sending any leading men to represent New Zealand in the Federal Parliament. If the capital of New Zealand was to be removed 'to New South Wales, the effect on Wellington, would be disastrous. He was speaking from personal knowledge of the removal of the capital to Wellington years ago. Then there was the question of the coloured population. If we federated, New Zealand would have to open its doors to a swarm of Asiatics, who might in time completely swamp our own labour, and perhaps cause friction between Great Britain, and Japan. Again the Maoris would be deprived of the franchise, which would be a monstrous injustice. Coming to the question of finance, he was sure the Federal Government would ultimately absorb the whole of our Customs and excise revenue, and he feared that even that would not meet the Government's requirements. The Act did not limit the Federal Government's power to impose taxation, and we should probably be taxed to help pay for larger railway works in Australia, which could' not benefit us. In. all probability that extra taxation would be directly upon the land, and he thought the present land taxation was quite as.heavy as the country could bear. The inducements offered us to federate were apparently defence and free trade. Defence he did not think worth, consideration a? an inducement. In time oi war Australia, could never be able to spare men to look after New Zealand, but there would be a great danger of men being-

drawn from our colony to help Australia. We would have to pay our share of the Australian navy and array. On the subject of free trade with Australia, it was certain that Australia only bought from this colony when obliged to by a bad, season-or by reason of a superior quality of article in New Zealand. The inter-State Comml sioii provided by the Act was a most dangerous expedient, as it had the sole right to say what was unreasonable or unjust, and no provision was made with regard to the proper representation of the different Staies on those Commissions. They would have absolute power to fix what rales the}' thought proper on our New Zealand railways, and he considered that a most dangerous power. So far from helping on the federation of the Empire, he believed it would be an absolute hindrance to it if we joined with Australia. If we stood out v Australasia would have two voices instead of one in the ultimate federation of the Empire. To Colonel Pitt: The functions of the inter-State Commissions dealt with trade and commerce, but they were not clearly defined in the Act. He thought free trade with Australia I would only affect our agricultural industries to a small degree, if at all. Hi! had no doubt federation would swamp our manufacturing industries. To Mr Leys: He did not think the New Zealand politicians wouYt be paying a part on a larger scale in a Federal Parliament, nor would we get ,our best men to Australia. The fourth.of the Customs revenue would not nearly suffice for the wants of Jie Federal administration. If he had; been living in Australia he would have been an ardent, federationist. but New Zealand's position was entirely different. He thought the States would fight strongly to ratain as much of their legislative powers as possible. To Mr Pieid: The business of the State Parliament would be SO GUI* tailed by federation that either the Parliament or the county councils would have to be done away with. Only the local work would be left for them, the Federal Parliament apparently having power to take over as much as it chose of the legislative work of the colony. To Mr Luke: He was not surprised to hear that 110 Acts were passed by the New Zealand Parliament last year: but he was surprised to hear that only seven of these would have come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament. Federation would tend to dwarf rather than develop our New Zealand statesmen. To Mr Beauchamp: His own impression was that there was a difference in character between the Australian and the New Zealand people. That difference would probably become accentuated as time went on. He thought federation with Australia would not .improve our borrowing powers. The expenditure of working the Commonwealth would be so tremendous that it must depreciate the value of loans. The Federal Civil Service would be filled almost entirely by the youth of Australia. MR. M. A. CLARK. Matthew A. Clark, merchant, and president of the Auckland Provincial industrial Association, said he thought federation would on ttie whole be very prejudicial to New Zealand. The contribution out of the customs duties would be a heavy strain on the finances oil the colony, and he believed with Mr. Vaile that at the end of ten years the Federal Government would absorb the whole of our customs revenue. Again, owing to our distance, New Zealand's requirements would be neglected. Even a two days' journey from the capital was felt to be a grievance in Auckland. As a manufacturer, he thought the. industries in New. Zealand would be very seriously injured. The farmers would not benefit so > much from free trade as some of them thought. The produce would come in from Australia, and compete successfully with the produce of our own farmers. In answer to questions, Mr. Clark said federation would mean a large interchange of trade between New Zealand and Australia, but that interchange would be for the benefit .chiefly of Australia. He did not think federation would level the wages between New Zealand and Australia, nor could the provisions of our Conciliation and Arbitration Act be enforced os easily in Australia, as here. He did not think our industries could stand under a 10 per cent, tariff. The New Zealand labour laws had equalised, but not raised very much the wages in the clothing trade, but they had Undoubtedly tended to prevent sweating. Competition from Australia would cut down-wages, because the rate of wage in Australia was lower. The abolition of duties would undoubtedly lead Australian manufacturers to compete with those of this colony for the New Zealand trade. THE TAILORESSES' UNION. Albert Sanford, vice-president of the Tailoresses' Union, said the , Union would be opposed to federation. His own opinion was also against federation. He feared the Australian squatters would crush our agricultural industries. MR. T. PEACOQK. ' Thomas Peacock said he thought it would not be advantageous fbr this colony to federate with Australia. His chief objections were the distance of this colony from Australia, and the question of defence. In the event of federation, he did not see how we could be in any better position as regarded defence. Our trade was nat so largely affected by the federation of the Australian States. Our frozen meat, wool and gold, and the greater part of our agricultural products all went to England. Our coal area was of a limited character, and was likely to be availed of chiefly for our own requirements. Our kauri timber had to compete with Oregon timber in Australia, and federation was not likely to increase the import. In answer to questions, Mr. Peacock said he thought federation would leave ample scope for the Stai c Parliaments to perform very important work. He thought it probable that under federation our direct taxation would be increased. Federation would, he thought, make no difference to the prosperity of our large commercial concerns. He would not apprehend any danger of State Parliaments declining undei federation, but representation in the Federal Parliament might tend towards developing professional, politicians, and" our members in that Parliament would not be so representative as in a New Zealand Parliament. The Commission adjourned at 5.40 p.m. ~ Continued on Page 3.)