C. R. Kelly, “‘I fear for the fate of the IAC’,”
The Australian, September 2, 1977, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.

SIR — I find your editorial attitude toward the Industries Assistance Commission puzzling.

You have frequently expressed concern that the costs of exporting industries in general, and farmers in particular, have been increased by tariff protection given to secondary industry. But when the Prime Minister attacked the IAC for measuring this cost and for recommending that the Government gradually and carefully lower the devastatingly high protection for textiles, garments and footwear, you blame it for being coldly analytical.

But the IAC is doing its duty under the IAC Act, it is measuring the cost and benefit of tariff protection. Do you want it to stop doing this because we now have an employment problem?

You must know there is no such thing as a free feed, that the employment gained in one industry by tariff protection is balanced by the employment lost in user industries, and in the economy generally as it gets sicker, because our costs get more and more out of line with those of our overseas competitors.

You should instead congratulate the IAC for being brave and competent enough to measure the costs and benefits. And, above all, you should defend it against attacks from the Prime Minister and other powerful people.

The Roman emperors beheaded bearers of bad news. I am fearful that that fate may await the IAC for having the courage to tell the Prime Minister what he doesn’t want to hear.

C. R. KELLY
Adelaide

(Mr Kelly is the Liberal MHR for Wakefield, SA.)

*****
C. R. Kelly, “Protection is not the answer,”
The Australian, December 23, 1977, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.

SIR — It makes me miserable when your paper writes as it does about tariff protection. You seem to think that making the tariff higher creates employment, but every economist, every exporter and, indeed, anyone with any economic understanding knows that employment gained by protecting one industry is almost always lost by damaging another industry. You seem to believe that there is indeed such a thing as a free feed, but everyone else knows that someone has to pay.

In your editorial on December 17 dealing with Professor Blandy’s statement, you seem to be almost about to admit that too much tariff protection is eating into our initiative and putting at risk our export trade with our Asian neighbours. But then you suddenly shy away and start talking about “experimental razing of whole industries.” No one is suggesting doing this but sensible people want to see a gradual lowering of tariffs so that we can foster trade with our neighbours in order to have a healthier economy and more employment.

If raising tariffs would get rid of some unemployment, why does not Australia and every other country raise tariffs even further and get rid of unemployment altogether? The answer is that this desperate remedy was tried in this 1930s with disastrous results to all economies and to world peace. Yet it is along that road that we are drifting, encouraged by editorial writers who refuse to face issues squarely.

C. R. KELLY
Adelaide, SA

(Mr Kelly is the former MHR for Wakefield.)