THE RECIPROCAL TREATY.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12592, 7 September 1906, Page 10

THE RECIPROCAL TREATY.

DISCrSSED BY THE FARMERS' UNION.

HOW WHEAT-GROWING WILL BE AFFECTED.

(BFXCLUi TO " THB PRESS.") WELLINGTON, September 5. ] The subject of tariff and roeiprocity was dealt with, at considerable length, by the Council of the Farmers' Union to-day. Mr Leadley (Canterbury) opened the diecussion by moving:—"That the proposal of the Government to admit Australian flour duty free is one •which, if 1 givon. effect to, will seriously interfere with tho profitable occupation of largo areas of most valuable land in New Zealand; that the growth of wheat is , an industry which absorbs a large 4 amount of labour in production, fur- , nishes a large and valuable traffic to the ( railway, and is conducive to the prosperity of New Zealand ac a whole.'' • Wheat groAving, hasaid, entailed an ex- < pendituro of about £1 an acre, besides j which there was a large amount of ■ other labour involved in. haulage and , Ko on, more particularly on the rail- 1 ways, and lie was satisfied that the rail- < way revenue from wheat alone would i be nearly £100,000 a year. The wheat 1 growing industry also entailed a largo j ] expenditure in the manufacture of im- j < piements and the shipment of grain, ; an<l he urged that nothing tended so much to t-he circulation of money and ] consequent prosperity as a good wheat ; harvest. Besides, a good deal of land in : the south could only be profitably occu- ■, pied in growing wheat. They could not < farm it to the beet without ( the help of the gram crop, and if they . wore compelled, as they would be if . the proposal went through, to put the , land into jjrn.ss, they would by enbjected to very heavy lo.«s. This was a very '. serious question for the southern farm- , ers, and h-o hoped the Council would ' t take a sympathetic view of the position. . Mr J. Wikon (South Canterbury) said the farmers had to pay duty on everything they bought, but got very little consideration in other respects. He declared also his oomviction that if the labour laws were stable, New Zealand could produce onie-thuxl more . wheat and one-third more fat lambs , than at present. i Mr Gngg (North Canterbury) thought i it would ba detrimental to the whole • of New Zealand if the duty was taken off flour. It was an alxsolutely bad bar- . gain. Such an arrangement, should never be made unle>e New Zealand got a really good quid pro quo. In Regard to employment, he said that in his . own case "if he gave up wheat growing lie would onJy employ 50 men a year, instead of 1-13 as at present. The labour cotrt was much more than £1 an acre ac . estimated by the mover. >ir Peat, 6oi<2 £« fijost ,

plank of the union platform was that j taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of raising revenue, und not for protective purposes, but it appeared from what had been eaxd that that plank only applied when it did ; not touch any of their pockets. Iney balked about labour, but they wanted to tax the labourer's breakfast. Mr Cooper (Wellington) complained particularly that Australian wheat could come into New Zealand at a less rate then New Zealand could import into Australia. Now. New Zeaknd could not compete with Australia in wheat growing, but it could in growing oats, which it was generally ready to export, and yet the treaty proposed to put a duty of Is 3d on New Zealand oats. Mr Soddon was decidedly clever, but in this case Australia had got decidedly the best of him. If the duty on flour was abolished, then the duty on boots and other commodities should bo abolished. Mr McQueen (Southland) did not think they should throw over their principles to protect one section of the farmers. If Australia could produce better wheat than New Zealand why should we not have, some of that better wheat? He would like to see a good j bargain made—a bargain in which we. j would gain. (Laughter). I Mr Jones (North Canterbury) urged thnt it would be far hotter to put a email tax on the labourer's breakfast than, that he should get no breakfast at all, and he declared that a largo number of men v:ould he thrown out of employment if this proposal was adopted. Besides, New Zealand would become the dumping ground for Australian wheat, and in time of drought what would we have to yay for our wheat from other because none would l>s> grown here, and it would have to be brought in from outside. The President said the question of fruit wnxa of great moment to the Auckland district, and if they encouraged the importation of Aufrtwiian fruit they would encourage the importation of fruit pests. Aβ to flour, it seemed to him that though one was a freetrader one should be a freetrader with some degree of sense. As to the motion, he thought it would have been better to move a resolution that the Council was not in favour of the reciprocity proposals. A deputation of flour millers was allowed to speak. Mr Evans said the proposed treaty ■na. , ? very unsatisfactory from their point cif view, and Australian wheat was cheaper, and went further than New Zealand wheat. If it was free, it wjould flood our markets. Millers would have to close up, and the price of wheat would go down accordingly. The treaty was, he urged, all in favour of Australia. Mr Jackson said there was a very largo amount of capital involved in flour-milling, and if the treaty was adopted, the millers would be ruined. Mr Wood supported these arguments. Mr Leadley, in reply, said he was surprised that Mr Seddoii, with his usual astuteness, had been , cajoled or betrayed into agreeing to euch a proposal. The motion was carried with, one dissentient (Mr Peat), and it was decided that representatives of the Council give evidence before the Industries an*! Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives to-morrow morning. Other matters in connection with the tariff were then dealt with. Mr Newman and Mr Richards were appointed to watch the interests of farmers when the tariff is before the House. Mr Grigg moved a Canterbury remit:—"That the only fair and equitable way of altering the tariff is in the direction of a revenue tariff with preferoiiicff to British goods carried in British bottom/)." The people of Great Britain, ho said, were holding out their hands to m, and it was. our duty to show our friendliness in every possible way, not by words, but in come practical manner. He felt sure they would receive the cordial support of Sir Joseph Ward in this matter. Increased contribution to the Navy by New Zealand was strongly urged by speakers to the motion, and the mover also urged that New Zealand should give preference to Groat Britain without stipulating for anything in return. As to the preferential tariff, it wae contended that it was merely a greater measure of protection against foreign goods and no advantage to Groat Britain, and it was urged we should make it clear that we were prepared to pay something to ensure the unity, strength, and continuance of the Empire. After _ considerable discussion the motion was agreed to. Other remits dealing with the tariff were withdrawn), on the ground that the tariff xas not likely to be dealt —.:il iL. , - *