The Evening Star SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1913.

Evening Star, Issue 15174, 3 May 1913, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1913.

Otjr Mr Fisher appears to hare been

getting along very harmoniously with Australia’s Mr Fisher aud his Minister of Customs, Mr' Tudor. Otherwise there would hardly hare been the necessity for him, duiing the speech-making after the dinner, at which he entertained I (among other celebrities) the members of the Empire Trade Commission, to say that iu half an hour’s talk between Ministers they could do more than all the commissions and conventions. The after-dinner hour is universally regarded as sacred to honeyed words, delicate flattery, the platitude (Imperial, economic, or political), in short, to the process knowu as “back-scratch-ing ” —and, when that palls, tho art of the raconteur is not misplaced. Mr Fisher, however, seems to have been so carried away by tho hcadiness of the success which he evidently believes has been the outcome’ of his negotiations for New Zealand with Australia’s and Canada’s representatives that he almost forgot his company manners. Bald cables, necessarily brief, no doubt sometimes tend to convey impressions which are afterwards modified by the receipt of fuller information by mail; and it may bo assumed that Mr Fisher diplomatically sugar-coated tho pill which ho administered to tho Empire Trade Commissioners. It was a double dose ho gave; for, after reminding them of their impotence as compared with that of real, live Ministers of the Crown, ho went on to make a suggestion which almost implied that, while it was right for inquiries into trade and tariffs to be pursued all over tho world, the wrong men had been chosen for the pursuit. “Ministers,” he said, “should “ circulate like coins, so as to know’ all “parts of the Empire,” Great indeed must have been the achievements resulting from the closeting of our Mr Fisher, Mr Tudor, and, latterly, Mr Foster! It makes one curious to know what they are. Lord Denman hinted that tho Empire Trade Commission might take the public into their confidence by issuing an interim report; but since yesterday’s cabled account of the little function in Melbourne an interim report of the triumvirate’s proceedings would meet with a much more eager reception in these parts. We would not for the world deny Mr Fisher the exhilaration of success, nor unseasonably have recourse to the wet blanket. But the fact must not be overlooked, much less suppressed, that the tentative agreement has to be approved by the Parliaments concerned; and, if it bites hard into the core of tho business, then the New Zealand Parliament at least will certainly be sharply divided in opinion as to the excellence or viciousness of the proposals. In Australia, too, as the election campaign becomes advanced, strong efforts are being made to place Tariff Reform before party politics and make the issue hinge on the former. The Protectionists are up in arms, and their mouthpiece, the Melbourne ‘ Age,’ declares straight out that “ in Victoria the electors have been unshackled from party “ slavery by the candidature of men “ who are soliciting our suffrages as “ Protectionists first and last and all “ the time. As good Protectionists aud “good democrats it is our manifest “ duty to support these candidates.and “to vote them into Parliament: for “in Parliament they will belong to neither party on the fiscal question, “ but to Protection and to the people “ alone. Our course is very clear and “ very simple. Both Fusion and Labor have betrayed us, and it is impossible “ to trust either party not to betray us “again. Let us, then, make it impos- “ sible for either party again to betray “ us by electing a solid band of Liberal i< >ro *- ec *-‘ Oll i sts in Victoria, who, holding as they would the balance of ( power, will be able to force either “ party to observe honor with the !! J la^on anc * to give us the sort of Tariff our country sorely needs.” And it must not be forgotten that it is not only to the town dweller that this powerful political organ makes its Protectionist appeal, but to the farmer; and it is undeniable that ho seems inclined to pay heed. So the future of the agreement does not seem to lie along a path by any means easy. It has been argued that, so far as primary products are concerned, the two countries are so nearly alike that a tariff wall between them really intercepts nothing. Then why have one? It is a mere superfluity, an ornanment, a hogy. But that is far from being the case. Despite the high wall commodities are laboriously -hoisted over and trade has some dimensions, and the removal of the barrier would undoubtedly multiply it with, we believe, most beneficial effects all round. Apart from w’hat happens when one country' enjoys a good season while the other experiences a bad one—ard then the height and thickness of the wall are veiy keenly realised—in normal times the effect of this artificial barrier is chiefly that it makes possible and encourages, nay', almost niakes certain, speculation and exploitation in the necessaries of life. The paradoxical situation in the oat market at this very moment is a case in point. In New Zealand holders are “ sitting tight ” on their stocks and asking prices which are far in advance of those which form the basis of free exchange in Australia. Yet no one can deny that in growing oats New Zealand can “ lose ” Australia. The moral, so far as the consumer is concerned, is pointed by the local announcement that yesterday, as a result of the high prices ruling for oats, the cost of oatmeal has been advanced in sympathy by £1 per ton, the ruling quotation being now’ £l4 10s. And just as w’e outdistance Australia in growing oats, so they do us in wheat raising. Only yesterday our readers learned that in Ashburton, the wheatgrowing county of the wheat-growing province of New Zealand, a farmer has been complaining that, with land and labor at their present prices, it barely pays to grow wheat if the crop yields less than 40 bushels to the acre, a return common enough here, but unheard of in Australia (except, perhaps, in . isolated: small paddocks), This calcula--1 tion is based on a market price of 3s 6d

Tariff Reciprocity.

per bushel, which may he taken as a fair average price for the cereal. The inference is that if wheat-growing is to be persevered with in New Zealand the price of land or labor, or both, must come down, or better prices must be secured from millers and other buyers, which means dearer flour and another halfpenny or two on to the price of the loaf. Evidently wheatraising is not keeping land values high ; but something else does, and the farmer therefore has at hand some highly-proStable use to which he could put his wheat paddocks. He need not suffer: and, if the tariff wall were removed or lowered, neither need the consumer, who most certainly does under present conditions. Timber is another line of trade in which tariff restrictions press heavily. Australia sends us hardwoods which are practically indispensable in bridge-building and other engineering works and also in coach-build-ing. But we place on them duties ranging from 10 to 25 per cent ad valorem. New Zealand sends to Australia timbers for which they have no local equivalent, and on these varying duties are imposed, white pine for butter box making being allowed in comparatively cheap, while on some other woods the duties mount up even higher than our protective maximum. There is a wide opening for New Zealand beech in Australia, where it is used in various manufactures, such as furniture making and the making of motor car bodies. A removal of tho present Australian duty would provide an outlet for the surplus stocks of beech with which many millers, particularly in the South, find themselves saddled. The price of timber affects the cost of houses, and this has a very direct bearing on rents; and rent is to many the biggest item in the eternal cost of living problem. Whatever Mr Fisher has done in Australia, it is to be hoped that he has not overlooked the importance of matters such as these. Probably he has not, and if his agreement proposes radical alterations in regard to intercolonial exchange in commodities such as these, then it has gone to the root of the matter, as no doubt tho outcry when Parliament proceeds to consider the agreement will unmistakably attest.