Definitely not in favour of slavery

Letter to the Editor:

I object to being criticised for things I did not say and don't believe.  Despite what Mark Uhlmann says (CT, July 31) , I did not imply (CT, July 24) that large-scale movement of labour in the 19th century was either good or bad, merely that, in some important ways, the scale of globalisation was greater before 1914 than now.  I am not in favour of any form of slavery or semi-slavery, and Uhlmann's implication that I somehow disagree with Deakin (and Reid's) objection to the same, is contemptible.  It is, however, pretty condescending to think that persistent voluntary movement of labour is not in the interests of the movers.  The experience of Hong Kong and Singapore shows that protection is not necessary for industrialisation.  To the extent that protection permitted higher wages in some industries, it did so only because their privileges generated political rents paid for by other Australians -- one of Reid's main objections to protection was that it was a highly regressive tax.  Deakin's policies initiated the urban-rural struggles for political redistribution of benefits which have not been good for Australia.  When lauding Deakin's political success, Uhlmann failed to note that Deakin was forced into alliance with Reid because Deakin's electoral support collapsed, while Reid's remained solid.  Reid's social concern was certainly not less than Deakin's, and his political foresight was greater.

ADVERTISEMENT