AN AUSTRALASIAN ZOLLVEREIN.

Evening Star, Issue 7162, 16 March 1887, Page 1

AN AUSTRALASIAN ZOLLVEREIN.

It is astonishing that the advocates of Federation—lmperial or Colonial—do not attach more importance to the formation of a Customs Union on the same lines as the German Zollverein and the principle underlying and maintaining the federation of the United States—that, namely,' of an uniform Customs tariff. Without this no federation is possible. The United States would cease to hold together if each State ’were permitted to levy contributions on its neigh bors, as Britain and the colonies do, in the shape of Customs duties. It is positively absurd that this condition of affairs should continue. Disraeli was certainly right in saying: “ When self-government was condeeded to our colonies; it Ought, in my “opinion, to have been conceded as part “and parcel of a great Imperial conaouda“tion—it ought to have been accompanied “by an Imperial tariff.” The opportunity for giving effect to this conception having been lost, and hostile tariffs having been proclaimed by thecolonies against each other, the problem that now presents itself is how the mischief is to be remedied. Some years ago—namely in 1872—the question of intercolonial reciprocity was raised, and some angry correspondence passed between the Australasian colonies and the Home Country on the subject. The demand of the colonies was that they should be allowed to enter into reciprocal treaties with each qtber for the interchange of produce. Probably no objection would have been raised to this bat for the action of New Zealand politicians, who insisted on the right of the Colony to make differential treaties with foreign countries. In October, 1868, Mr Stafford, then Premier of New Zealand, invited the Australian colonies to agree to a conference, to qgusider, amongst other things, a resolution of the House of Representatives, moved by Mr (now Sir Julius) Vogel, recommending that steps should be taken to ascertain the position of the Colony in relation to commercial treaties between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, and especially that authority should be sought to enable New Zealand, iu connection with the Australian colonies, to negotiate with the United States for the free admission into that country of wool, the product of the several colonies. That invitation was favorably received by all the colonies, although the suggested conference was not held, owing to an agreement not having been arrived at as to the time of meeting. Resolutions were, however, agreed to in 1870 by the representatives of New South Wales and New Zealand, one of which was to the effect that the respectivp Governments should “ address an earnest representation to the “Secretary of State for the Colonies res- “ pccting the disadvantages under which “ the Australasian colonies labor -in regard “ to the doubts which exist as to their power “to make mutual arrangements for the “ interchange, duty free, of their several products and manufactures, as also in “ respect of the doubts as to their powers to “enter into conventions with foreign ‘ ‘ countries. ” The subjects were thoroughly threshed out at the time, with the result that a Bill providing for permitting intercolonial reciprocity passed by the New Zealand Parliament; and similar Bills from Victoria, and we think New fciouth Wales also, were disallowed, or, as the phrase goes, “ Her Majesty had not been advised to give her consent,”'etc. The position was peculiar. New Zealand was the only Colony which was unfettered by its Constitution in regard of making differential (Customs treaties with other colonies. On this question Sir Julius Vogel wrote thus; —“ When the matter was looked into itwas “found that the Constitution Acts of the “several colonies expressly prohibited the “ imposition of differential duties, whilst “ the Constitution Act of New Zealand “merely prohibited the imposition of any “ duties inconsistent with Her Majesty T a

“ treaty obligations. The Legislature of “New Zealand passed a Reciprocity Bill, “ which was reserved for the significance of “ Her Majesty’s pleasure. Upon careful “ inquiry it was found that the view taken “by New Zealand was correct. But inas- “ much as a colony cannot reciprocate with “itself. New Zealand’s legislation was “ necessarily fruitless, unless other colonies “were relieved of their disabilities.” At that time Sir Julius Vogel was thorough in his advocacy of Frcetrade. In the memorandum from which we have quoted, he says with much prescience: “If Great “ Britain were to confederate her Empire, it “ might and probably would be a condition “ that throughout the Nmpire there shonld be “a free exchange of goods. The arguments “in favor of a Customs union between “ colonies have as much force in their appli- “ cation to a wider union, embracing the “ whole Empire.” How admirably this reads in contrast with the narrow i views expressed in favor of local or interchange by the same man in recent times ! The dispute between the Australasian colonies and the Imperial authorities went on for some time ; and the greater the resistance they met with at the mauds of Lord Kimberley and other members of the Imperial Government, the more emphatic became the cry of the - colonies for the right to enter into treaties of colonial reciprocity. And they were well supported in their demands by the Queen’s representatives in the colonies. Earl Belmore wrote strongly and wisely’on the subject“ I am sure the true policy with “regard to Australia is to do-everything to “ bring its various divisions closer together, “ even at the expense of a certain amount “of economic theory.” At last, after many years of despatch-writing, and much grave deliberation, the Australian Colonies Doties Act was, in 1873, passed by the British Parliament. By this Act it is provided that the Legislature of any one of the lian colonies shall have full power “to make “laws with respect to the remission or “ imposition of duties upon the importation “into such Colony of any article, the “produce or manufacture of, or imported “from any other of the said colonies, or “the produce or manufacture of or imported “ from New Zealand.” There is a proviso that differential duties shall not be imposed or remitted in the case of any-' foreign countries —a restriction necessary to prevent invasions of treaty obligations. Thus, after many years’ hard fighting, the colonies obtained the concession they had so strenuously, and sometimes angrily; fought for. And* now—fourteen years after the passing of the .Act—it may well be asked what have been its results. In no one respect that we can call to mind have its provisions been put into operation. ’ In the case of Victoria and Tasmania, after a lengthy conference, the projected treaty fell through, because it was discovered that Victoria desired nothing more than to obtain a close market for her duty-protected wares. In New Zealand something similarly occurred as between this Colony and Fiji. An embassy consisting of Mr Frederick Moss, M.H.R, and Mr Seed, Secretary of the Customs Department was, in March last, commissioned to proceed to Fiji, armed with authority to arrange for a commercial treaty between those islands: and New Zealand. It was proposed also to obtain the consent of the Crown to similar arrangements being made with Tonga, Samoa, and Tahiti. The Rev. Shirley Baker, of whom so much has lately been heard, was in New Zealand when thedelegates started, andacoampanied them to Fiji. Indeed he seems to haveifcsen the originator of the scheme; The mission of Messrs Mofes and Sbbd; howeverf>proved abortive' from precisely the same cause as that which rendered the negotiatibns bebetween Victoria and Tasmania ajailnre. The proposals made by NewZealaiid were, in the language of the Administrator of the Fijian Government, “ unacceptable,” for reasons explained : by the Colonui Secretary. They not only did not offer any “ mutuality of advantage,” batSU6 comprehended a provision affecting the night of ■•: i■ ■ : ' .

. •„*« similar arrangements with liialiUMV'-UU- »>• .V ~ , , , ; ,V 'J',■ ■■ ■ ii: v V iiitsl similar ucharged with full duties, ranging froni 10 per cent, downwards. As Mr M Gukgolv, the Fijian Colonial Secretary, pointed out, these proposals required the imposition by Fiji of high differential duties in many imports from Australia, although the amount of trade between and Fiji is, m round numbers, about five times as great as the trade between New Zealand and riji. “The adoption of such a principle by this Government,” writes Mr M ‘Gregor, “would not unnaturally provoke a feeling “of hostility with our present principal “ commercial connection, and would, move- “ over, upset and derange the fiscal system “of the Colony at a moment when it is « but ill-prepared to venture on any expen- “ mental course.” Mr M'Gkegor, however, expressed the opinion that a fiscal treaty could be arranged on more equable tei msFiji admitting free of duty .the farm, dairy, and agricultural produce of New Zealand, fruits" meats, fishes, and timber; on tho other hand, New Zealand would be requued to admit free of duty Fijian maize, maizena, unmanufactured tobacco, and all fruits, and sugar, tea, and coffee at a reduced rate on the existing tariff of New Zealand, These attempted arrangements fell through ; tor what reason does not appear on the recoid, but probably the forlorn hope of raising beetroot sugar was at the bottom of it. _ The last approach to colonial reciprocity comes from South Australia, by which Colony, it is stated, proposals have been made to the New Zealand Government to interchange wines and other produce for our farm and dairy produce free of duty. Nothing has yet transpired as to the reception of these proposals by our Government, but it is to be hoped that revenue reasons will not be allowed to stand in the way of arrangements which be otherwise than beneficial to our native industries.