[TO TUB EDITOR OP TUB " SPECTATOR. "] SIR,—Thanks for your
excellent description of " dumping," —namely, " foreign importing under a vituperative alias." Australian Protectionists when inducing us to adopt Pro. tection asserted that British manufacturers " dumped " their goods into Australia at less than cost with the object of pre- venting the establishment of Australian industries. This "dumping," then, did not come from a Protective State, but from Free-trade England. It is most refreshing, to Free- traders in Australia to note the sturdy fight the Spectator is making for freedom of trade ; and Australian Free-traders are especially pleased to note that the British mechanics and workers generally seem to be loyal to Free-trade principles. Australian 'mechanics and labourers, on the contrary, are mostly Protectionist; but this is natural, because the early Radical journals were Protectionist, while Free-trade journals were in favour of the party of money and privilege.
The Free-trade journals opposed payment of Members, the broadening of the franchise, and other democratic reforms, while the Protectionist papers upheld them, and naturally the Australian worker took his fiscal faith from his friends and not from his enemies. At present the Australian Tory papers, such as the Sydney Horning Herald and Daily Telegraph, Melbourne Argus, and Adelaide Register, are nominally Free-traders, bitterly oppose democratic reforms, and unfortunately stoop to vilifying and slandering democratic reforms, especially if they are proposed or favoured by the Labour party. This, in my opinion, largely accounts for the popularity of Protection in Australia ; but the stern logic of facts is opening the eyes of the democratic leaders. Even in the Commonwealth Labour party there is a powerful minority of Free-traders, and time will, I think, compel the Labour party to perceive that a heavy tax on land values, coupled with Free-trade, is the only hope of the people of Australia for better conditions.
Victoria has been Protectionist for thirty-odd years, yet it is the worst Australian State for the labouring man. It has been unable for many years to retain its young men, as the Census shows, and as the emigration to Westralia also shows. About half the money remitted through the Post Office from Westralia is sent to Victoria by Victorians driven out of Victoria to earn their living in Westralia, notwithstanding that Victoria is easily first in climate and fertility as compared with Westralia, South Australia, and New South Wales, not to mention the gold and other minerals which Victoria produces.
I observe that the Protectionist statement with which we are so familiar in Australia, that "the foreigner pays the duty," is current in England: it was believed in Australia by many that this statement was true, but our last drought largely altered that. Australia had to import thousands of tons of breadstuffs, and had to pay a heavy Protective duty thereon. This was added to the cost of the breadstuffs, and South Australia benefited because she had a large exportable surplus of bread- stuffs, which were shipped to the Eastern States ; and she received the same price for her breadstuffs as was paid for American breadstuffs plus freight and Protective duty, though South Australian breadstuffs paid no duty; consequently the South Australian farmer got a splendid price for his bread- stuffs at the expense of the consumer at home and in the Eastern States.
During the past few weeks an outcry has been made by the Treasurers of Victoria and South Australia because, owing to a bumper sugar harvest in Queensland and New South Wales, little or no sugar will be imported from outside Australia, and consequently the revenue hitherto received by these States for duty on sugar will not be received, and will have to be made up by increased taxation ; but the cost of sugar throughout Australia will not decrease, as its price will be regu- lated by the Colonial Sugar Company, which has a practical monopoly of sugar-refining, at the cost of importing sugar from Mauritius or Java plus the duty. These and other object-lessons are compelling our Protectionist friends to think over these matters, and I hope that a few years will show the workers of Australia the folly of Protective duties.
Curiously enough, the elective Upper Houses of South Australia and Victoria, the membership of which is confined to the wealthy classes or their nominees (as in South Australia the electors are few in number, and in Victoria the Members are unpaid), very readily agreed to heavy Protective duties prior to Federation, and also very readily passed Factory Acts, Wages Boards Acts, and Early Closing Acts, but refused to pass Acts which would impose taxation on land values. The reason is very simple: they knew that Protective duties would ultimately fall on the people, and they also knew that taxes on land values would fall on the useless middleman, the landowner, and consequently every effort has been made by those who wish to evade taxation to enact a Federal Protective Tariff which would produce a large revenue, so that the necessity for imposing a tax on land values would be avoided. It appears to me that Mr. Chamberlain is working on somewhat the same lines: new taxation must be imposed on the British people, and if they could be induced to impose Protective duties, a large income will accrue therefrom which will ultimately fall on the poor, and the wealthy British landowner will escape his share of the heavy taxation which war and extravagance have necessitated.
—I am, Sir, &c., A. T. SAUNDERS.
Cowra Chambers, Adelaide, June 21st.
[Our correspondent writes of the Australian situation with knowledge, but he must not suppose that the British land- owner would benefit by Protection. He would pay dearer for everything he bought. He does not dread extra taxation on land, for the very good reason that owing to high rates land is taxed already as much as it can bear.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
