THE RECIPROCITY BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18625, 5 August 1922, Page 2

THE RECIPROCITY BILL

MINISTER REPLIES T 0 CRITICS. MR SIDEY AND MR STATHAM (From Oub Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, August 4. Tlie Tariff Treaty second reading debate yesterday was remarkable for two things the weakness of the Opposition criticism and the compliments showered upon the Minister of Customs from both sides of the House. Even Mr M'Callvun, who moved the amendment, had a . good word to say for the Minister, and in the end lie did not even call for a division on his own amendment. Strangely enough the most hostile criticism came from two of Mr Downio Stewart’s follow members from Dunedin—Mr Sidey and Mr Stathara. Mr Sidey had evidently been misled by someone else’a figures, which were full of errors, and apparently Mr Sidey had not taken the trouble to checlc them. Mr Downie Stewart, in his' reply, picked out a few of the main mistakes and corrected them. This he did in a good-natrud way. Mr Statham’s criticism was more . general and more depreciatory, and in dealing with him the Minister took the gloves off. Dealing with Mr Sidey first, the Minister said he wished ,to correct some figures quoted by the hon. member, which he said he got from the president of the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association. These figures appeared in the Otago Daily Times. The hon. member probably felt justified in relying upon the president of that association for correct information, but the table in the paper was an astonishing conglomeration of blunders from beginning to end, and be could not understand where the president got his figures from. To illustrate how far Mr Sidey was out in his figures ho would quote one or two items. Mr Sidey had asked why it was that perambulators came into Now Zealand free, while they had to pay 30 per cent, into Australia. The answer was that so for from that being the case we have reduced both countries to a level oasis of 25 per cent, in this as in other items. In this special schedule hon. members would find that often for every 10 per cent, that we came down Australia came down 20 per cent. They had to give away far more than we did "on practically all these items. In that particular item they came down from either 40 per cent, or 55 per cent.; we came down from 35 to 25 per cent. As to locomotives, hardly a competitive item, it was alleged that the duty into Australia was 274 per cent., and only 20 per cent, into New Zealand, whereas as a matter of fact the duty into both countries had been fixed at 20 per cent. Then os to metal bedsteads. New Zealand came down from 35 to 25 per cent., and both countries had agreed to 25 per cent., but Australia had to come down from 45 per cent, to 25 per cent., so that the statement that Australia had a higher rate than us by 15 per cent, on this item was entirely wrong on all those items. We got Australia down to the same footing as ourselves, and he considered that that was true reciprocity. Then the hon. member had quoted foodstuffs. He said the duty on bacon and hams was 3d into Australia, and only 2d into New Zealand, but by looking at the schedule it would be seen that we synchronise there again at 2d a lb. As to coffee, he said the duty was 6d into Australia, whilst in. New Zealand it was 3d in the lb, now the old Australian rate was 6d on all schedules. Wo maintain our foreign rate at sd, and have not reduced to 3d as alleged and the Australians kept their British rate of 6d, which was the same as their foreign rate. On some items it would bo found that we had kept our rates at a higher level than Australia. For example, m the matter of shot cartridges the Colonial Ammunition Company of New Zealand could export to Australia at 15 per cent., hut if the Australians exported to New Zealand they would pay 30 per cent., pr 3s per 100, whichever was higher. As to hosiery, continued Mr Stewart, the member for Dunedin South says the duly into Australia is 35 per cent., and into ivow Zealand 25 per cent. This again is wrong. The duty both ways is 25 per cent., and the Australians gave up far more duty than we did. As to brass work for engineering and plumbing, he says that the duty into Australia is 35 per cent., and into New Zealand only 20 per cent., whereas as a matter of fact both countries stand at 25 per cent. Thi Australians came clown from 45 per and wo only oame down from 35 r ,-er cent He says that sheep dip is 20 per cent, into Australia, and. freo into New Zealand, whereas this item is free into both countries. The hon. member’s figures have g°t mixed up in some extraordinary fashion, and I have only quoted a few instances to show how he has been misled. MR STATHAM’S CRmOISM. In th e course of his speech on the Bill Mr Statham said he felt that they were 'all groping m the dark on the Bill. The information given by the Minister of Customs and uie Prime Minister did not carry hon members very far. and the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor the Hon. W Downio Stewart had been able to tell them what the financial result would be showed that it was very largely a leap in the dark. It would have been better if, instead of 30 items, the measure had dealt with only a few. It seemed to him that Austin'll would gain a very great deal by the Bill and Now Zealand very little. In attacking the agreement generally Mr Statham said there was a clause in the Bill which enabled the Minister, once the treaty was through, to make alterations, so that the whole power was put in the hands of the Minister. In the agreement itself provision was made empowering either country to raise or lower its duties on six months’ notice, and . this practically meant that the whole question of duties was to be left open. Then in regard to the primage duties it was provided that New Zealand was entitled to retain its primage duties, but Australia reserved the right to impose primage or other general duties, provided such duties did not exoeed the duties imposed on similar goods imported from the United Kingdom. The words Mr Statham objected to were “or other general duties.’’ He repeated his old criticism that everything was still liable to be fixed by Ordeis-in-Council.

Mr Downio Stewart interjeoted that the hon. member had evidently overlooked the explanatory memorandum which prefaced the Bill, and which pxplained that suen orders had to be submitted to Parliament. Mr Statham replied that while it was true that these Ordors-in-Oouncil were to be submitted to Parliament within 14 days of its meeting, and might bo revoked or varied by Parliament, there was no means of compelling the Government to give the House an opportunity of doing so. MR STEWART IN REPLY. The Minister, in his reply, said ho regretted the remarks of the member for Dunedin Central, because while members of the Opposition quite justifiably give what criticism they could relotivo to the measure, it' was all of a generous nature. “I thought,” said Mr Stewart, “that if I could look for generous criticism .or help from any member of the Opposition benches, it would have come above all from my own colleague, representing a neighbouring constituency. Instead of that, ho jibed and sneered at the treaty. He said it was of no advantage to New Zealand. He said there was nothing in securing the free entry of fish into Australia. He ignores the fact that the fishermen right throughout Now Zealand, from the Bluff tq Auckland, have urged and prayed for this, and for months past have wanted to know if they could pencil in ship space in anticipation. The hon. member went on to sneer at the fact that I had been congratulated. I think bon. members will agree that all I said in opening was that I was gratified that the treaty was so well received in the country, and I think I was justified in saying that. If the hon. member was generous he would admit that telegrams and letters are coming in not from Dunedin, Christchurch and the West Coast, Auckland, and elsewhere, but from -various presidents of manufacturers’ associations and different bodies, and although there are minor points on which they differ they agree that the treaty is a fair one, and a good one. Mr .Tenkin, president of the Federated Manufacturers’ Associations, who was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, says himself that bo thinks it a fair bargain and a good one. although he would like minor alterations. However, the member for Dunedin Central can, of course, take his own view in a matter of this kind.”

Mr Statham: You were not justified in saying that I sneered at it. The Hon. W. Downio Stewart: You maintained that the treaty was of no value to New Zealand. Mr Statham: No. The Hon, W. Downie Stewart: I wrote down the very words the hon. member used, and ho said that New Zealand was going to gain very little out of it. In regard to Ordnrs-in-Council, Mr Stewart said' the hen. member knew perfectly well that any

such Order-in -Council must come before Parliament, which could revoke or tbijt it. There had been no increase of power given to the Minister or to the Government by the Bill, It was found necessary to have those powers, as did Canada and Australia, and there was no Minister who would not bo gladly free of the power if he could avoid the responsibility. , Public opinion would not allow a Government to force through the House Orders-m-Couooil, and refuse Parliament the opportunity of discussing them, or varying them, if it really desired to do so. In this instance he had done all ho could to allow Parliament to criticise this measure. As a matter of fact, all that was requu*e<i under the Act was to issue an Order-m-Counoil when the treaty was made, and ask the House for a resolution of confirmation, but his colleagues urged that there should be a Bill brought in to give effect to it, os the House would then have a fuller opportunity of discussing it. Although a resolution would have been sufficient a Bill was drawn up, sent to the Committee of Ways and Means, and every step taken to give the House every chance to discuss the proposals. Then the hon. member contradicted himself in the most extraordinary fashion by stating that he objected to the power to amend the rates of duty, and then later on says: “Perhaps it is as well they have the power, because then wo con terminate the arrangement bv six months’ notice.” Mr Stathara: I said it was the only safeijhiard. . „ L ~ , The Hon. W. Downie Stewart: I think the hon. member objected to it. . . Mr Statham: I objected to the principle. You or© twisting my remarks. Mr Stewart: I should be sorry to do so, but it appeared to me the hon. member spoke with two voices. As to his legal construction of the position, his complaint is that we can only impose primage duties, whereaa Australia can impose primage or other general duties. Even assuming no was right, which ho is not, on his own showing we have power to raise duties at any time; and even if he was right in supposing that ‘‘general duties” include other duties than primage, it would be oasv forus to counter any move on the part of Australia. The words that were put in were carefully considered, because section 6 meets the special circumstances of New Zealand s primage duties, and should et-ill hold good with reference to the goods coming into New Zealand, and that if the commonwealth so decided she could impose primage or other duties. The use of the words “general duties” is duo to the fact that fin some countries they are not called primage duties on the principle of “Ejusdem Generis.” As the Attorney-general stated, other general duties would mean duties of a similar kind to primage duties. There is no difficulty about the matter, and even if there was, the power is entirely in our hands to counter any fanciful construction of the words. The real safeguard which will prevent the abuse of those powers is that if either party seeks to be unreasonable, and to raise duties for its own benefit, the other party will start to do the same thing, and wo will find ourselves bock’ to the foreign tariff again. The hon. member also complained that there was evidence as to what the financial results of . the treaty would be. Well, it is obvious it is impossible to give the figures, or oven an approximate estimate of what so farreaching a change will produce. All we do know is that trade with Australia is practically cut off just now, and that every item on the schedule which will lead to trade between the two countries will mean an increase in the revenue to New Zealand, and will materially help to restore the customs revenue as between Australia and New Zealand.

Mr M'Callum: You pledge your word to that? . The Hon. Mr Downie Stewart: Yes.-The trade has dropped so 'enormously between these two countries that any relief of the position must be of great importance. At present a serious handicap existed to trade between the two countries. I will show the drop that has taken place in the importation of some goods which ore used as raw material in New Zealand. Take the iron and steel industries. The drop in the importation of bar, bolt, and rod iron was from £76,683 for the she months in 1921 to £451 for the first. six months of this year. The importation of wire drooped from £11.154 to £2251. The importation of rails dropped from £3 R ,645 to £249. Many items dropped from thousands to hundreds. Motor tvres dropped from £120.000 to £IO.OOO. This meant that New Zealand importers have had to send further abroad for their imports and pay higher freights, with a consequent increase in cost. I believe that if this treaty is adopted there will be a material improvement in our New Zealand customs revenue. The member for Dunedin South has unfortunately been misled by those figures which appeared in a Dunedin paper. He mentioned toilet soap, and that the duty was not high enough" on that. I have a very distinct recollection, of seeing a letter in ray desk yesterday from a manufacturer of toilet soap, thanking us for the duty we had retained. It stands at 30 per cent., which really is an effective. duty of 34£ oer cent, when the primage is put on, and the invoice value is added to it of 10 per cent. The Australians came 5 per cent, below their British rates, and we retained 5 per cent, above our British rates on jewellery. Ho said the rate into Australia was 40 to 45 per cent., and into Now Zealand 20 per cent., whereas in both cases it is fixod at 25 per cent. At the end of the debate Mr Statham, by way of personal explanation, said he had been misrepresented. He had not sneered, but had simply criticised the tariff, as he bad a perfect right to do. “I criticised it rather vigorously,” he said, “but I don’t think I could bp accused of sneering.” In regard to Ordors-in-Council, Mr Statham added he had pointed out that under the Act of 1921 any agreement for a reciorocal tariff ought to be ratified by the New Zealand Parliament. That was being done by this Bill, but he pointed out that Parliament was now parting with its power, because the Government was taking power to make an-ir alterations of the reciprocal tariff by Order-in-Oouncil. It was no argument that these Orders wore t.o be laid on the table of the House. That did not .give the House an oonortimity of ratifying or reieoHng. because no member of the House had the opportunity . of dealing with these Orders-in-Council. Mr Massey; No Minister in the world would dare treat Parliament as the hon. member suggests. Mr Statham: I say w© have no power.