WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1913. "THE NEW PROTECTION."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1713, 2 April 1913, Page 6

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1913. "THE NEW PROTECTION."

The most striking part of tho policy speech of the Prime Minister of Australia at Maryborough was, of course, his unexpected aiuiouiicea large development of the l'cdcral tlefcnec scheme, but until wc have further particulars, wc cannot give an opinion upon this announcement, Mr., Fishek .himself, as a politician preparing for an election would, no doubt, consider of moro importance his references to li } m P enclin g referendum. The cabled summary of this portion of his speech is not very adequate, although we suppose that if he talked for days Mr. Fisher could not establish such a strange proposition as that industrial peace could only be secured by' increasing the powers ot the Commonwealth." He might more justly have said that it is only by means of "unifying" amendments .to the constitution, giving grcn.tcr powers to the Federal Government at the expense of the States, that the climate of Australia can be improved. . Moro justly, wc say, because during the Brisbane strike Mr. I 1 isher showed that tho existing powers of the central Government may be, and by him, and by those like him will be, misused in the interests of industrial disorder. In the course of his speech, Mit. Fisher said that "tho new protection, which was the Government's policy, was only economic justice." It is in order to break down the existing constitutional barriers to "the new protection" that the Government brought in its six proposals to amend the Constitution, The Prime tMinis-t-ii has said that the Australian Con-Hiit-i'tion is "tho worst in tho world," meaning that it contains prohibitions against the exercise of unlimited power by the Labour caucus which sits 'outside Parliament and governs Australia. What he desires is \tlie complete destruction of.tho Federal principle, and the concentration of. all power in his hands; and naturho detests the necessity for consulting -the people before putting his most violent designs into effect. When he spoke of "the new protection" as being "only economic jusMr. Fisher had in his mind no idea excepting that justice is a good thing and a good tvord: "econbmic justice" appealed to him as'a catch cry as scductivc to the ignorant as the equally meaningless term social justice." "Economic justice" is ! ,really! as meaningless as 'mathematical justice,"; for. economics is a science of facts. ' The law of supply and demand is precisely as just.or as unjust* as the law of gravity; it is simply, a fact. Of course, there are some who say that "the new protection" is necessary to counteract tho effects of either wageraising or high protective duties. In a.; .speech on one of . the six Bills which are the subjects of the coming poll of the people, the' Attorney-General, Mn. W., M. Hughes, foreshadowed a policy of fixing the pricc of com-moditiasV.'-'/.He contended that that was not.,a. greater economic. heresy than tho fixing of wages ;■ and , perhaps lie; may be right from one point of.yicw. The raising of wages has ' certainly increased the prices' of goods, and in some cases led to proportionately greater increases in price., One would suppose that a sensible man would solve the' difficulty by reverting .to the status quo. But Hit. Fisher and his friends think that they can raise "wasres. without limit, and simultaneously keep down or reduce prices—a feat which they know probably as well is anybody is beyond tha compass Df human ability.. But it'suits the Labour-Socialists to say that' "the capitalist'' is the whole trouble. One lould almost wish that Mr. Fisher's policy were , fully and rigidly enforced for twenty years; Australia ■vould 'be .very nearly ruined, of :ourse,_ but there would be tho-com-pensation of a tremendous objectesson. As the London Morning Post said in a recent , discussion of :-he Federal Government's policy, ;he Government is "forced upon a :ycle of preposterous- interference vhich can only end in failure and lisillusionmcnt."