Sin,—In your issue of December 26th, 1903, you call attention
to the increase which has taken place in the numbers of the Labour party in both Houses of the Australian Parliament ; but your comment that Victoria " is one of the chief con- tributors to the increase " is somewhat incorrect. So far as the Senate is concerned, last December four Victorian Members were elected,—Messrs. Trenwith, Best, Finlay, and Styles. Two of these, Senators Best and Styles, were retiring Members who were re-elected. ' Senator Finlay won the Labour party's seat lost by Mr. Barrett, who was unseated ; whilst Senator Trenwith,•who some years ago was the leader of the Victorian Labour party in the State Houle, but' who has severed his connection with the official Labour party for some years, succeeded to the seat vacated by Senator Robert Reid. So far as the Victorian Labour party's representation in the House of Representatives is concerned, there has been no change in numbers or Members. The heavy vote cast in the Victorian country districts for the Labour candidates for the Senate would seem a most emphatic contradiction of your suggestion that the Labour movement there is confined to the artisan and city classes. This heavy country Labour vote was the moat remarkable feature of the elections, so far as Victoria is concerned. That the Australian Labour party, as such, ask for a high tariff is, moreover, hardly correct. The Labour party in Victoria certainly do, but not the Australian Labour party ; and the speeches of Mr. Pearce (Western Australia) in the Senate, and Messrs. Page (Queensland) and Hughes (New South Wales) in the House of Representatives, are favourable examples to the contrary. So far as the Labour party's ideas of direct taxation are concerned, they are well exemplified in the existing New South Wales, South Australian, and New Zealand Land-taxes, which fall, not, as you suggest, on lands beneficially occupied, but on all lands in town or country occupied or not occupied, according to their unimproved or ground-rent value. Let me say, in conclusion, that it is un- fair to saddle the Labour party with " objecting to public burdens and insisting upon public benefits." The Custom. house in Australia is the main source of revenue. Excluding the contributions made by consumers of liquor and narcotics, averaging about £1 per head of our Victorian population, our other Custom taxes (falling mostly on necessaries) average about £1 per head over the Victorian population, as against a fractional part of that amount contributed through the Custom-house on taxes falling on articles other than liquor and narcotics in the United Kingdom. This means that the Victorian, and indeed the Australian, working man is more heavily taxed than his brother in the United Kingdom. Our contributions to the revenue by way of direct taxation are, it must be admitted, insignificant compared to the direct taxation of the United Kingdom. The Labour party through. out Australia is unanimous in demanding an increase in nearly all these last-mentioned taxes. They are not, however, unanimous in expressing a wish for a reduction of their Custom-house burdens,—many sharing with Mr. Chamber- lain the belief that the more they are taxed the richer they will grow. The objection to public burdens in the shape of direct taxation (coupled with a desire for public benefits in the shape of railways and irrigation works) comes not unnaturally from the landowners and other classes not in sympathy with the Labour party. As for Imperialism, the fact of the victories won in South Africa being followed by the decision of the temporary Government of the Transvaal to import Asiatic labour under conditions so utterly repugnant to our hopes and ideals will make Australia, not possibly less loyal, but will cause her to give less unquestioning loyalty when next she is invited to bear a share, however small, of the burdens of
Empire.-I am, Sir, &c., FRANK H. G. CORNWALL. Ludstone Chambers, 352 Collins Street, Melbourne.
Previous page
