PROTECTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2985, 5 August 1870, Page 3

PROTECTION.

The following extracts are from the Melbourne Age of July 18 and 21:— So often has the fallacy that the inter-colonial trade is suffering from the protective tariff of Victoria been repeated, that the assertion has become with the free traders an article of such firm belief that they cannot conceive the possibility of its being controverted. One of the documents printed for the information of the delegates at the late Conference will, if they condescend to look at it, somewhat shake their belief. It is a comparative statement of the duties charged in the several colonies on the various articles of imported merchandise. The articles enumerated are 3SO in number, and the document is therefore a somewhat formidable one, but it can be epitomised and the character of the respective tariffs shown at a glance. The following abstract gives the number of articles imported into each colony under the several kinds of Customs duties.

To further illustrate the character of the several tariffs, we append the following classification of the number of articles on which the various ad-valo-rem duties are payable in the respective colonies: —

It will be seen from this comparative

statement that the Victorian tariff differs from those of the other colonies on the mainland in subjecting a com. paratively small number of articles to two different rates of duty, 5 and 10 per cent.; that New South Wales and South Australia tax a greater number of articles at one rate of duty, 5 per cent.; while Queensland does the same at the intermediate' rate of 7i per cent. If not looked at with an extremely prejudiced eye, these tables must show that the tariff of Victoria is as favourable as any of the others for intercolonial trade. At first sight it may appear that Tasmania and New Zealand have less objectionable tariffs than those of the other five colonies ; but the reverse is the fact, for, in the attempt to cover 308 articles with fixed duties, an extraordinary complication is produced. On 149 articles New Zealand levies duties varying from 6d to 5s per cube foot, and Tasmania treats 142 articles in a similar way. When a number of articles, or even two qualities of one article, are included in one package, this mode of charging duties must be very vexatious. There are twenty-four articles admitted free into Victoria, on which New South Wales imposes ad valorem duties, and these are nearly all articles of extensive consumption, comprising the various items of piece goods, metals in sheets and bars, steel, paper, &c. Not only is a much larger category of goods subject to duty in New South Wales, but commerce is further fettered by vexatious stamp duties which interfere with almost every business transaction, and constitute an item of charge to which goods may be over and over again subjected after they have been entered at the Customs. If, then, the intercolonial trade of Victoria has declined, it may be set down as a certainty that New South Wales cannot have gained it on account of its so-called free-trade tariff.

There are some anomalies in the tariffs of the colonies whose Governments repudiate protection, which show that they have no objection to the encouragement of native industry, when it can be done by a side-wind. Thus, New South Wales levies a duty of 5 per cent, on coal, but exempts from the operation of her omnivorous appetite for taxation the item, “ ores unsmelted,’’thepalpableintention being to make Newcastle an Australian Swansea. Queensland, too, which comes next after New South Wales as a universal levier of ad-valorem duties, exempts no machineiy except that which is intended for use in the manufacture of sugar. South Australia candidly includes in her scanty list of free goods “ all bags or sacks used for grain or the exportation of our produce.” The tariffs of Tasmania and New Zealand are sufficiently complex to hide a great deal of protection, and it would be much better for them if they were to draw a more distinct line, and acknowledge a policy the benefit of which they seek to obtain covertly. The alterations in the New Zealand tariff which have just been proposed by the Government are all of a protective tendency; while the declaration of their willingness to give a bonus on the importation of Australian wine is the first practical intimation of belief in the doctrine which all sound protectionists are anxious to see established —that intercolonial free-trade should be promoted, because it is the most effectual mode of encouraging native industry, and keeping out undue competition from the underpaid labour of older countrita. The free-trade delegates from the other colonies, Mr Cowper especially, fell into a strange inconsistency. They declared their determination to remain free-traders, to refuse protection for their own industries, and yet they arrived at a resolution to protect each other’s industries as against transoceanic competitors. What other meaning can be put upon this resolution : —“ That the Australian colonies ought to be enabled to enter into arrangements with each other which would allow of the reciprocal admission of their respective products and manufactures free of duty ?” Mr Cowper, who came to curse protection, has, by agreeing to this resolution, left his blessing on it. What a commentary on the cant of the free-traders!

When the members of the Chamber of Commerce and of the Intercolonial Conference met on Separation Day, at the festive board, an attempt was made to give the affair the appearance of a free-trade triumph. The proposers of the toasts spoke free-trade, the respondents took up the cue, and “ concurrence ” was the order of the evening. If the feast had been in celebration of the return of Victoria to “ correct principles,” the talk could not have been more appropriate. And yet, under this semblance of cordial fraternisation with the givers of the feast, there must have been serious misgivings in the minds of the guests that they were acting an unworthy part in countenancing a delusion. Prom certain disclosures made in Adelaide, referred to in anything but an impartial spirit by a contemporary, we are enabled to compare the sentiments of the delegates in secret conclave with those they applauded in the dining-hall of the Criterion. The following little paragraph reveals two important facts, namely, that it was the representatives of New South Wales who refused to have anything to do with a Customs Union, and that all the others were willing to accept a common protective tariff:— “ The New South Wales delegates formed themselves into a dissentient minority. They objected to the discriminating principle of the Victorian tariff, which all the other delegates were willing to adopt.” They did not say so at the Criterion, but were quite willing to allow the Chamber of Commerce to jump to the conclusion that they were free traders one and all. Messrs Hart and Barrow gave no intimation which would have prepared the free-trade trenchermen for the announcement of their future policy, which was made after their return to Adelaide:—“The South Australian tariff will be entirely remodelled

during the current session, to some extent on Mr Francis’s own principle.” Such a statement as this requires no commentary. The delegates did not choose to acknowledge in the stronghold of free trade the impression which their visits to our manufactories had made upon them, but they returned to their own country, and, like sensible men, set to work to make a practical application of the principles of their new creed. Mr Chapman, of Tasmania, claimed to be the originator of the old free-trade tariffs of Australia, the statesmen of Victoria having followed the example set by him. Of course he was immensely cheered by the Chamber, but what would they have thought of their hero if the fact divulged in South Australia had been known to them: « The tariff of Tasmania was unreservedly submitted to the Conference.” This must have been after New South Wales had withdrawn, so that in effect it was to Victoria that the Tasmanian tariff was unreservedly submitted. It is hardly to be doubted that Tasmania will follow the example of South Australia in remodelling her tariff, so as to make it nearly assimilate with that of Victoria. When that is done, and the three southern colonies are in the best position for entering into treaties of reciprocity, the statesmen of New South Wales will probably begin to perceive that in “ forming themselves into a dissentient minority ” they have made a great mistake. The southern treaties will probably be completed by the time New South Wales and Queensland will be looking for a market for the products of their new industry—sugarcane planting, and it may not then be convenient for the co-operating colonies to admit them on such favorable terms as might be offered them now. They may, by “ forming themselves into a dissentient minority, secure the approbation of the mercantile community of Sydney, but it is very doubtful if they will be so successful in carrying with them the majority of the inhabitants of New South Wales. It was the very unanimity of the three southern colonies on the desirability of forming a Customs Union on the basis of the Victorian tariff, that rendered it necessary for Mr Francis to go into details as to the probable profit and loss of the transaction. From the materials at his command it was made evident that the loss to Victoria from the partnership would be£156,000. To make a stand against sacrificing such a sum is, it seems, regarded by those who would gain by the transaction, the manifestation of a “ curiously huxtering spirit.” It is urged that the gain to the commercial community from the facilities opened up for their trade would be more than commensurate with the loss. In other words, the free-traders want protection for themselves at the expense to the country of the large sum mentioned. Free trade is, it appears, whatever will put money in their pockets, —an appropriate definition from a huxtering point of view. But the colonists are not all traders, and those who are not may arrive at the conclusion that £156,000 is rather too much to pay for a small accession of commercial prestige. When the two neighbouring colonies have reconstructed their tariffs, the negotiations may be recommenced with some probability of success. Of course there can never be an indissoluble Customs Union. We have demonstrated the absurdity of such an aspiration. But there is every reason to suppose that reciprocal free trade may be accomplished and perpetuated by treaty arrangements terminable on either side at short notice. Each of the parties to such arrangements would have its legitimate influence, and if any attempt at tyranny or over-bearing dictation was attempted on the part of any one of them, the others would have their remedy By severing the connection. The dream of an indissoluble union between colonies whose interests might not always be compatible, must be given up before any satisfactory progress towards mutual commercial relations can be made.

Ad Fixed Free. Valorem. Duties Victoria 2ti ... 246 ... 108 N. S. Wales... . 5 ... 350 ... 25 S. Australia... 15 ... 322 ... 43 Queensland ... Tasmania ... 4 ... 337 ... 49 72 ... — ... 308 New Zealand 72 ... — ... 308

5 per 7J per 10 per cent. cent. cent. Victoria . 107 .. — - ,. 139 N. S. Wales .. . 350 .. . — •• • S. Australia.. . 322 .. . — •• . Queensland .. .. . 337 .. •