TBE RECIPROCITY BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 709, 31 August 1870, Page 2

TBE RECIPROCITY BILL.

♦> ■ The following speeches were made on the above measure in the Legislative Council, during the debate on the second reading: — The Hon. Mr Johnston : Sir, I agree with the remark of the hon. Mr Waterhouse, that, if we pass this measure, it will be a dead letter. I coincide with him iv that opinion. I must say that, after the speech of the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading, I thought, from what he said, he would ask leave to withdraw the Bill, for the hon. the Colonial Secretary himself pointed out there could be no second party to this arrangement, and that the only advantage to New Zealand would be the introduction of wine from Australia. It strikes me that, therefore, the most simple course would be to withdraw this dead letter; and if it is the desire of the Government and this House, that Australian wine should be introduced at 23 or 33 a gallon, to paas a resolution to that effect. Indeed, I learn from the financial statement that the Colonial Treasurer proposes to introduce Australian wines at a duty of 3a per gallon, and to raise the duty on other wines to 5s per gallon. Perhaps it is not necessary to argue now that legislation in such direction would either be wise or prudent ; but I must say I think differential duties are a wrong to the exporting country more highly taxed, and injurious to commerce. I believe differential taxation is no longer to be found in the British tariff, but that a perfect equality of dues is exacted on all imports of the same nature, whenccsoever they arrive. To quote a sentiment of Sir Dudley North's, " The world, as to trade, is but as one nation, and therein nations are as persons." Such a sentiment should command itself to every one. There should be no distinction of race or nation in our dealings : there should be none of that sort of selfish affection which the Hon. Mr Watsrhouse said he should like to see growing up between the colonies. One hon. member said that 100,000 bales of wool went to France annually, and that it was desirable it should be sent direct, by way of Marseilles. I agree with him, but that is a question of quickness of transit and cost of freight. France takes our wool in lurge quantities ; then why should we place what we get from her in return at a disadvantage ? A great deal has been said about the advantages to be derived from trading on a reciprocal basis with Australia, but I believe there would be none. The provoking cause of this Bill is a desire to conciliate brewers and barleygrowers, and some few others, who clamour for the introduction of Australian wine ; but, sir, would it not ba better to reduce the duty on all wine. I was told by a gentleman, than whom no one knows better, that the consumption of wine, in consequence of the high duty, had been considerably reduced, and that peoplecontented themselves " with colonial beer am 1 a case of square." I need not state to hon gentlemen the contents of a case of square As a matter of taste, I do not think that Australian wine is to be compared witl foreign wine ; and I believe it would b< found that its consumption would be confined to the few — that it would not bt acceptable to the many. I know, as at importer, that when the light and acic

wines of France and Germany are submitted to public competition at an auction, they will sell for nothing. The taste of the general public is confined to port and sherry ; these wines are the wines of the working class, and if I appeal to my hon. friend Dr Grace, he will tell you that the wines used in a sick room are port wine and the light sparkling wines of Germany and France. It is part of the modern system of treating in many diseases, to use those wines. Therefore, if this Bill passes, it will be to allow a few to drink the wine they like at a considerable less cost than their neighbours. I agree with the hon. gentleman, Mr Waterhouse, as to the extraordinary powers granted to the Governor in Council by this Bill. > When I read it, I was much surprised to find that the House of Representatives had agreed to relinquish its highest duty. I know not one greater than the power of imposing or giving up a tax. It is a special trust placed by the taxpayer in the hands of his representative, and yet, by this Bill, extraordinary power to alter the taxation of the taxpayer is, with an incredible insouciance, virtually transferred to the Colonial Treasurer, although in name to the Governor in Council. I believe the Hon. the Colonial Secretary will agree with me, that there is no function of the House of Commons more jealously watched over, and retained in its own hands, than an alteration of taxation of any kind. If Ministers are of opinion that a tre ity for reciprocal trading should be made with the Australian colonies, let them follow in the steps taken by the English Government in the treaty with France, to which the Hon. the Colonial Secretary has referred — let them through a Commissioner or otherwise, settle the terms of the treaty, and at the first sitting of Parliament submit it for ratification. The Hon. the Colonial Secretary stated that au the treaty between England and France was drawn up with the assistance of Mr Cobden, it could not possibly have any bearing in favour of protection. I agree with the hon. gentleman. The task undertaken by Mr Cohden, instructed by the English Government, was to induce the Emperor so to modernize the tariff of France as to greatly increase trade between the two countries. At that time, between the tariffs of England and France there was this gap of difference: the rule of the English tariff was a low duty in general, with a large number of articles absolutely free; the rule of the French tariff was a high duty in general, with a large amount of absolute protection. I am happy to say that Mr Cobden was eminently successful that a treaty was entered into and ratified, which, although Questioned by some Frenchmen, who still cling to protective duties, has always been affirmed in the French Chambers by a large majority. The Hon. Mr Holmes spoke of the advantage which we should derive by reciprocal treaty, not only in our own dealings with Australia, but also with America. For my own part I deprecate having anything but one tariff to all the world. Our tariff ia one of high duties ; if hot), members will compare it with that of Victoria — broadly stated to be protective— they will flad that, with scarcely an exception, the duty upon every article considerably exceeds that levied in Victoria. Take the article of beer, upon which, to protect Lur brewers, Victoria has a duty of 6d a gallon. We, in order to out-rival Victoria, put a duty of Is 3d on bottled beer and Is on beer in bulk. It seems to me that the predilections of our Legislature are in favour of colonial beer, as everything is done to facilitate its manufacture in the colony. In Victoria, hops ore charged 2d per 1b, — that article is the one exception in regard to which our tariff ia lower than that ot Australia; New Zealand, with a discriminating preference in favour of local brewers, charges only id. With respect to reciprocal trading with America, I read a letter, written by our Premier at the time we commenced the San Francisco service, to the President of the United States, in which he almost lectured the President and that country on the high duty the American tariff imposed upon colonial wools, and suggested the advantages which would result to the United States by a reduction of duty. With the letter, copies of our tariff! and a file of our newspapers were sent, and I confess to thinking that if General Grant troubled himself to go over our tariff, and to read our newspapers, he would be startled to find that on two leading articles of American export, tobacco and kerosene, the one coating in America about 9d a pound, the other about lOd to Is a gallon, we put a duty of 2s 6d a pound, and of 6d a gallon ; but what is still worse, in our newspapers he would find, under the head of notices for tender, John Gorton, by direction of Government, asking for tenders to supply 10,000 yards blue serge, 2000 yards white serge, and 2000 blankets, the whole to be exclusively of New Zealand manufacture. But, Sir, after the admission bo frankly made by the hon. gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, that the Australian colonies cannot, without the assent of the Imperial Government first asked and obtained, conclude a reciprocal treaty, I cannot think that although several hon. members expressed themselves in favour of the second reading of this Bill, they will vote for its passing into law when, in the nature of things, there can be no reciprocity. I cannot think they will be parties to a Bili being presented to Her Majesty for her assent that is without truth. Sir, quite recently a conference of the Australian colonies was held in Melbourne. Attempts were made to agree upon one tariff for the Australian colonies, but signally failed ; each colony clung to its own tariff, und the only conclusion. art ived at was the carrying of a resolution brought forward by Mr Wilson, the representative for Tasmania, which I will read :— "That, in the opinion of this conference, the Australasian colonies ought to be able to enter into arrangements with each other, which would allow of the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures duty free on such terms as might mutually be agreed upon, and (hat so much of the Acts of the Imperial Parliament as prohibits such engagements'

ought to be repealed." In conclusion, Ido not think any can be so impatient to drink Australian wine at 3s a gallon that we should pass a Bill that can reciprocate to New Zealand no advantage ; and I think it would be better and more becoming towards the Imperial Government, to pause and see what results will attend the resolution of Tasmania, which has, I presume, been already forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Home Government. 'J he Hon. Mr Seweli. : I cannot accept the description given of this Bill by the Hon. Mr Johnston. The main object of the measure is not to introduce Australian wineß into this colony, although that is, no doubt, one of the incidental advantages which will be derived from it; and it is worthy of remark, that one of the circumstances which would most tend to the improvement of that wine would be the tact that a wider market was opened for it. The hon. member has passed by the real object and scope oi this Bill: It has very much less reference to Australia and Australian wines than to our own interests. We believe that, by encouraging to the utmost possible extent that reciprocity of trade which is spoken of in the last resolution of the conference, which my hon. friend has read, and which was adopted as the general seDtiment of all the Australian colonies, we shall promote each other's interests, and by doing so each will advance its own interest. We are about to engage in a large enterprise, in the hope of promoting colonization, and if, in connection with that, we can develop our local industries, it seema to me that it would be an extremely salutary thing. I can imagine no step more calculated to effect that object than to get rid of these trade barriers which prevent the interchange of commodities between this group of colonies. The course proposed by the Government is exactly that which was followed in England. The great object there was to promote and mutually develope trade and commerce between England and France. What did they do ? They entered into reciprocity treaties. The customs duties of the two countries being restrictive upon their mutual trade, mutual conditions were agreed to, that on one country moderating its tariff, the other should engage to admit the goods of that country upon more favourable terms We are imitating the course which has been indicated to us by the mother country. My hon. friend says that this Bill will be a dead letter, and treats it as if it could not have any effect ; for he Bays that although we are free on our part to pass a measure of this kind, yet the Australian colonies are bound by a stricter rule than we are, not to allow the importation of goods from this colony upon the terms of differential duties I can imagine no step more calculated to advance the object suggested by the resolution of the conference to which my hon. friend refer.', than this step on our part. We, having our hands untied, say to them, " We are anxious to enter into an arrangement with you as Boon as possible." This will operate as an inducement to them to get rid of their present restrictions. It would be a necessary precedent step, as it were, to any such action as is indicated by that resolution. Instead of being a barren or unproductive measure, it is one likely to be productive of the most salutary results. Turning to the question of how far we are really debarred, by the conditions of our constitution, from establishing this reciprocal interchange of trade, we find that Canada has done it, and in the course we are taking we are only following her example. The hon. gentleman, Mr Waterhouse, has objected to the form of this Bill, which is, I think, in some respect?, open to his criticism. Tho Bill does appear j to give to the Governor somewhat larger powers then we could have supposed the House of Representatives would have consented to. 'Ihe reason why the Bill was proposed in this form is, that it is an exact copy of the Canadian Act which received the sanction of the Imperial Government. That Act, passed in 1859, says t — "The Governor in Council may, from lime to time, declare that any article whatever, when of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the British North American Provinces, or possessions of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, or of any one or more of them, is or is not admissible into this province free from duty, and under what circumstances, conditions, and regulations." That is the course of legislation which has been adopted in Canada, which has been submitted to and sanctioned by the Imperial Government ; and I do not think the Government is open to any reasonable objection that, in proposing the application of a similar principle in this country, we should have followed such a model. But there is weight in the suggestion of my hon. friend opposite, as to allowing so large a power to pass into the hands of the Colonial Government without some qualification, and the Government will be prepared to receive suggestions to modify that part of the Bill. The question whether or not the Bill shall be reserved for Her Majesty's assent is one of no importance, and I may say at once, with the concurrence of my hon. colleague, that the Government will undertake that it shall be so reserved. With respect to the immediate results from this measure, I believe it will have a beneficial effect in the direction indicated by the hon. member, Mr Waterhouse. I think it will bring tbe relations between these colonies much closer. It is of the greatest importance, in our present circumstances, that we should establish the closest possible relations with the Australian colonies, and nothing would so greatly tend to promote that object as a free commercial interchange of our different commodities. Nor are we debarred from doing this by any constitutional rule. I disclaim on the part of the Govern ment, any such intention as that which has been suggested by the hon. and gallant member, Colonel Whitmore. Ido not look upoi this measure as an indirect way of raising the question of our political relations with tte mothiT ci untry. This 13 purely a fisca.

measure, but while I disclaim any such intention, I decline to be debarred from proposing what I believe to be beneficial, merely because other persons may give it a colour which does not belong to it. Let us look at this measure independently of all considerations of that sort. Is there,or is there not, any constitutional rule debarring us from adopting this change ? There is no doubt that, as parts of the empire, we are bound by Imperial treaties ; but I desire to point out what appears to me to be a matter of no inconsiderable importance as affecting these colonies in their relation to the mother country, with reference to the effect of these Imperial treaties. So far as I can form a judgment upon the question — a question which I am aware has not been much considered— l do not think that, in matters of fi3cal arrangement, we are bound by commercial treaties made posterior to our own constitution, and in derogation of those powers which have been conferred upon us by the Imperial Parliament. I cannot admit that, after the Imperial Parliament has conferred upon us power to regulate our own commerce and our own affairs, and imposed upon us corresponding burdene, that it is open to the mother country to alter altogether our financial position by fresh treaties with foreign countries, tending to injuriously affect our interests. Nor do I imagine that that has been the case. The French treaty of 1860 has not affected our customs duties. They are at variance with the duties arranged by the French treaty. In my opinion, the Constitution Act binds us to the observance of those commercial treaties which were in force at the time of the Constitution Act being passed, and to no other. Clause 61 is as follows : — " It shall not be lawful for the said General Assembly to levy any duty upon articles imported for the supply of Her Msjtsty's land or sea forces, or to levy any duty, impose any prohibition or restriction, or grant any exemptions, bounty, drawback, or other privilege upon the importation or exportation of any articles, or to impose any dues or charges upon shipping contrary to, or at variance with, any treaty or treaties concluded by Her Majesty with any foreign power." That is what the Imperial Government has laid down. This, then, is not a question as to the effect of the French treaty of 1860, but as to the treaty existing at the time the Constitution Act was passed. That treaty, which governs the commercial relations between France and England, is the treaty of 1826. And there is no doubt that, in the broadest terms, it provides that there shall be, between Great Britain and France, and their respective possessions, a general equality of commercial privileges. But I wish to call attention to a remarkable illustration of the practical construction given to this treaty as applied to the principle of this Bill. The Attorney-General has, I think rightly, advised us that this constitutional restriction, and the effect of these treaties, is limited <o cases between power and power, country and country, and nation and nation, but does not apply to parts of the empire, inter se. The correctness of this opinion is shown by what was done in the early days of this colony. I have pointed out that, under the French treaty of 1866, there was this stringent condition in force, goveruin g thecommercial relations between England and France. How was that applied when New Zealand was first founded? This colony was, in the first instance, a dependency of New South Wales, a mere offshoot, in fact, as the Chatham Islands are of New Zealand. In the year 1840, under an Act of tho Imperial Parliament, New Zealand was constituted a separate colony. How did they then deal with the question of the Customs duties ? Did they consider that the colony was debarred by the French treaty from establishing differential duties as between France and the Australian colonies ? I have before me the Colonial Act passed in 1840, and I will read the 54th section of that Act. It is as follows: — " And whereas it is advisable to allow the produce of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land to be imported into the said colony of New Zealand free of duty; be it enacted and ordained that the products and manufactures of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, excepting Bpirituous liquors, shall be admitted to entry in importation into the said colony of New Zealand without any duty being charged thereon." This was done in the teeth of what might have been urged if there had been any value in the objection grounded on foreign treaties, but it never presented itself to the minds of the Colonial Government or of the Imperial Government, or of any persons who were then dealing with this question, that the colony was then debarred from making such a fiscal arrangement as between itself and the sister colonies. I would call attention to another matter which illustrates the same principle. In 1867 we passed an Act fixing a differential scale of pilotage dues in favour of colonial ships, but shipping dues are included in those conditions which bind the Imperial Government, as between itself and foreign countries. We, nevertheless, established a difference in favour of Australian ships, and that difference has been sanctioned by the Imperial Government. I point to these circumstances as indicating, in the clearest way, that we arc only proceeding in old paths when we recommend that the principle adopted at the very outset of the colony should now be reinstated. It appears to me that the measure is quite within the powers of the colonial Legislature, but if there be any doubt on that point it is extremely desirable that it should be removed, and I cannot conceive any better way of removing the doubt than by adopting this Bill and submitting it to the Imperial Government in a quiet aud temperate manner.

A Scotchman, who had hired himself to a farmer, had a cheese set down before him, that he might help himself. The master had occasion to remark Eome time afterward: " Sandy, you take a long time to breakfast." " In troth, master, a cheese o* (his size is nae sac boou eaten as ye may think."