Bert Kelly, “You pay millions to prop up workers,”
The Australian, July 8, 1976, p. 9.

With tariff protection, government subsidies to manufacturing industry are five times greater than subsidies to farmers, writes BERT KELLY, Liberal MP for Wakefield, SA

I attended a big symposium of car and component manufacturers in Melbourne recently. This was a big moment for me, because being a member of a big rural electorate, I do not often meet such distinguished people in such salubrious surroundings.

I was particularly pleased to be there as a member of the advisory council of the automotive industry and so could be said to be one of the first, if not the finest, flowers of the Jackson committee.

But it wasn’t a happy occasion. I gathered the impression that the industry felt that it was in enough trouble with the car plans without being lumbered with me. After I had been welcomed (I think that’s the word) we settled down to discussing the industry’s problems and everyone sounded as sad as my farmers do, so I felt at home.

And soon they began to snarl at me, as my farmers do. One captain of industry said I should not be critical of the $200m subsidy that the car industry was getting because he, as a taxpayer, had to pay for the reserve price wool scheme for wool. He clearly didn’t believe me when I told him that the money from the Government was a loan and would probably be repaid this year.

But the crowning moment of misery came when the chairman of the meeting, a captain of industry indeed, whose name I will supply if provoked, said that if only secondary industry could receive the same degree of assistance that farmers received, then it would be well content. This startling display of either ignorance or prejudice has caused me to prepare a rough balance sheet. It would be foolish to pretend it is accurate but it is not far out.

Assistance
I have used the Industries Assistance Commission 1974-75 annual report figures, which are the latest available.

Assistance to rural and manufacturing sectors 1974-75:
_________Rural section $m | Mining sector $m
Grants and subsidies: 72 | 186
Revenue foregone: 74 | 37
Other: 302 | 76
Total: 448 | 299

But now we come to the really big item the tariff subsidy. It has been interesting watching the Government, and indeed most people, balk at the cost of supporting the shipbuilding industry now that we know that the taxpayer would have to pay, in subsidy, $13,000 for every person in the industry if we were to successfully compete with imported ships. In this case, the subsidy to shipbuilding has come from the taxpayer. But the tariff subsidy is paid by exporters.

The increased costs of all the items that the exporter doesn’t use, or of which he isn’t the only user, get built into the CPI figures, then into wages, and so on down the line. The price of plumbing does up and medical services, the price of almost everything gets dearer as the costs are passed along the line.

But when they get to the end of the line, to the exporter, he can pass them no further. The withers of his customer in Japan are unwrung when the exporter complains that his costs have gone up. “How sad,” you can hear the Japanese say, “but I can buy this stuff for so much from Canada.”

So the exporter pays the price for tariff protection. I am not arguing that the price is not justified. All I am doing is measuring it or at least the IAC has done this by putting out a table giving the subsidy equivalent of the tariff assistance given to various industry grouping for 1971-72.

Net subsidy equivalent 1971-72 in millions of dollars:

Food, beverages and tobacco ………… 303
Textiles …………………………. 117
Clothing and footwear ……………… 266
Wood, wood products, and furniture ….. 100
Paper and paper products …………… 244
Chemical, petroleum and coal products .. 180
Non-metallic products ……………… 72
Basic metal products ………………. 246
Fabricated metal products ………….. 315
Transport equipment ……………….. 287
Other machinery and equipment ………. 348
Miscellaneous manufacturing ………… 125

Subsidies
The IAC says that I should not add up this column for some reason I do not follow. But it is clear that the tariff subsidy is in the range of about $2000m a year which when added to the direct payment to manufacturing industry of $299m looks at least a little larger than the rural $448m that the rural sector got, with overseas aid and rural roads given in.

All exporters, be they farmers, miners or manufacturers, have always known that there is no such thing as a free feed, that they were paying for the tariff subsidy that other industries obtain. But they are always a bit hazy about the size of the burden. Now the poor sods know.

*****
C. R. Kelly, “One-Sided,”
The Australian, July 14, 1976, p. 8,
as a letter to the editor.

I have had many querulous inquiries about an omission from my article about tariffs on Thursday, July 7 [I think he means Thursday, July 8]. I gave the total aid to the rural sector as $445 million in 1974-75, but I added a rider (which was omitted in the article) that this $445 million included $111 million for rural roads and $51 million for overseas foreign aid. It is true that rural roads benefit farmers but they also benefit miners, rural town dwellers, tourists and city people going about their business in the country.

Similarly, $51 million for overseas food aid should perhaps not be counted as aid to farmers but as aid to the citizens of the recipient country.

If both amounts are deducted the rural aid was $286 million which was less than the aid of $299 million for manufacturing. But to the latter figure must be added the net subsidy equivalent amount of at least $2000 million a year inherent in tariff protection. The argument and the figures are indeed somewhat one-sided.

C. R. KELLY
Member for Wakefield,
Parliament House,
Canberra