ANOTHER BUBBLE PRICKED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8364, 26 February 1913, Page 6

ANOTHER BUBBLE PRICKED

Two writers in the December issue ot “United Empire,” the journal ot the Royal Colonial Institute, told dismal stories of the disastrous effects ot democratic and .Labour legislation in Australia. As is well known to Sail whoso vision is not obscured by prejudice, the party in Australian politics nominally known as “Labour” really includes a major portion of ail the Liberalism in the Commonwealth, since the fusion of the so-called “Liberals” with the Conservatives has driven progressive people into, a choice of what we may term, for the sake of, argument, the lesser evil. Opponents ot Laboufy that is to say, speaking m broad terms, now include the whole ot the reactionary element in the public life of Australia, and, whatever it may choose to be styied> it is in a minority. Hence the contributors to “United Empire” to whom we refer, Mr JJ'. W. Turner and Mr Howard Spensley, find themselves rather absurdly including lihe Federal land tax in the category of condemned “Labour legislation.” This scheme of taxation, and particularly that part of it which specially penalises absentee owners, is declared to be having disastrous consequences in scaring capital away and hampering industry. In the January msue of ths journal referred to, that wellknown Australian journalist, Mr H. B. Guiiett, puts in a few words on the other side of the question. He pertinently asks why Mr Turner and Mr Bpensley avoid giving the least actual evidence to support their contention that Australia is suck a higfily-danger-ous place for British capital, if the Federal land tax is so evil, why not give proof-—some proof at all events of its devastating effects f Mr Gullett might also have asked the critics to explain, if they can, in view of their pessimistic assertions, how it is that the Conservative London ‘“Times" not so very long ago cordially invited the Fisher Government to go on to tne London market and ask for a loan. However, he points out that while there is a complete absence of proof to back up the lugubrious contentions, evidence to the contrary is abundant. For example, in the last ten years, during which the progressive party, as opposed to the reactionaries, has been so ascendant, every Australian industry of any consequence has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Capital invested m Australia has never enjoyed a better record in dividends. Mr Gullett urges that the Federal Labour party must have a substantial baching ol public opinion, because there are certainly not enough trade unionists to give the Government its present big majority. The land tax was a leading issue at the last general election, anu people of all classes voted for it anu for Labour, ‘‘because they recognised that the monopoly of agricultural lands in pastoral holdings was a menace to the national interest.” As to the absentee Us menacing British capitalists, Mr Gullett observes that the total land tax assessed against nonresidents in 19H was while in the same year the value of Customs preference given to goods -of. British manufacture was £I,UtiI,HUS. The Labour party voted both for the land tax and the preference. Thus is yet another Tory bubble pricked.