PREFERENTIAL TRADE IN AUSTRALIA. [To TUE EDITOR Or THE "SPECT/LTOR.1
Sin,—The prominence given in England to the disdussicrn on preferential trade has come as a surprise to the Majority of Australians. One would believe from Mr. Deakin, the Prime
Minister, that the whole of Australia was seething with anxiety to enter into preferential trade relationship with Great Britain, whereas the undoubted fact remains that the great majority evince no interest in the question. It was not made a main feature at the last Federal elections, which
were fought on the Socialistic issue. Preferential trade was certainly referred to by a number of candidates, but no candidate was elected or rejected because he believed or dis- believed in this question, which was felt to be purely academic and altogether outside the range of practical politics. Mr. Deakin is undoubtedly held in great esteem by Victorians as a rhetorician, and one who is possessed of great fluency, although it is generally recognised that on the next morning the effect of his orations have almost completely disappeared. His actions rarely correspond with his utterances. Moreover, he is merely a tenant-at-will. His party number only seventeen or eighteen in a House of seventy-five, and in the Senate he is hopelessly in the minority. Mr. Deakin holds office at the will and pleasure of the Labour Party, despite the fact that this party violently opposed him at the elections in December last. Nothing in modern politics has been more hollow and in- sincere than the advocacy by the Protectionists in Australia of preferential trade. Sincere critics confess that this advocacy was and is being merely used for party purposes; and that fact becomes more decisively true when it is remem- bered that Mr. Deakin, as the leader of the Protectionist Party, captivated a number of Australians by the electioneer- ing placard of "Australia for the Australians !"—which is readily recognised as quite inconsistent with the idea of preferential trade. During the last few weeks the Pro- tectionist Party in Victoria have raised some clamour against Municipal Councils using British goods. The Prahran City Council required cement for a large undertaking ; the Council on expert advice decided to use English cement. The Collingwood City Council called for tenders for a steam- roller; the lowest tender was from a British firm. Then the cry of "Australia for the Australians !" was again raised. The Age, the Protectionist organ in Melbourne, clamoured against English cement being used or the mere possibility of a British steam-roller being imported, and yet during the same week it published a strong article advocating pre- ferential trade. This hollow hypocrisy makes one wonder why Great Britain should trouble itself in discussing the question. Australia was never more prosperous, and yet the Pro- tectionists insist on declaring that the present duties are far too low, and should be considerably increased. They are using the idea of preferential trade to increase these duties. The Protectionist journals picture Great Britain as a fast decay- ing nation, as a land of pauper labour, and as a country which Is hopelessly being surpassed by Germany and the United States. Every fact to magnify the importance of Germany especially is emphasised and reiterated, every fact to depreciate Great Britain is dwelt upon and extended with pleasurable and complete satisfaction. The Protectionist Party in Australia are truly Little Englanders. As Mr. Joshua, the chairman of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, recently declared, the first consideration of the Protectionists is to increase Custom-duties. There would, he said, be no weeping if preferential trade were forgotten, provided the Custom- duties were increased. Of course it must be remembered that the main advocacy for preferential trade is from Victoria, which is the mainstay of Protection in Australia. The other States are very much divided on the Fiscal question. Outside of Victoria Protection is not a trtimp-card. From a senti- mental point of view, preferential trade is enticing and alluring. From a business standpoint the difficulties would be insurmountable. There would be wrangling over every item. Instead of cementing the Empire, preferential trade would be the wedge of cleavage and dismemberment. What might be beneficial to one of the dependencies might be pre- judicial and detrimental to others. Instead of a number of dependencies bound harmoniously together with Great Britain by what the late Sir Henry Parkes finely described as "the crimson thread of kinship," we would have the lament- able spectacle of an unseemly scramble of a number of self- governing Statet jealously watching that none should by preferential trade gain an advantage over the other.—I am,
(President of the Free-Trade Liberal
Melbourne. Association of Victoria).
Previous page
