Luxury Laws and Jewellery: an Australian attempt

Sumptuary laws may have disappeared but Governments have made other attempts to restrict purchases of luxury items. Such restrictions often arose during wars, with some metals being needed for making munitions and other war related products, so that their accessibility to the jewellery trade was curtailed, as was the case with platinum during WWI.  There was also a perception during war time that civilians should restrict spending on luxuries. In both world wars, different governments imposed tariffs on imported goods with the stated purpose of freeing up shipping space for the war effort. Tariffs are still levied today to protect certain national markets.

While the earlier Sumptuary Laws introduced at various times by different governments up until the 17^th century were designed to protect certain national industries, they were also very much focused on protecting social class structures, setting out which class of person could buy or wear what.  This focus on maintaining class structures has appeared in more modern times through the introduction of what can be described as luxury taxes. One example of such an attempt was the establishment of a Luxuries Board in 1917 in Australia by the then Prime Minister Billy Hughes, following a request by the UK Prime Minister Lloyd George (Dick, p192). Lloyd George needed funds for the war and wanted citizens to buy war bonds rather than spent their money on luxuries. He also wanted them to stop buying imported goods and buy locally made goods. He believed all Commonwealth countries should do the same.

The Luxuries Board, comprising five businessmen, first met in June 1917. They reported directly to the Prime Minister and not Parliament and its reports were never made public.  The duty of the Board was to make recommendations to the Prime Minister about the classes of luxury goods which should not be imported or which should have restrictions imposed. Its first difficulty was in deciding what was a luxury item as what might be a luxury to one class of person might not be a luxury for other classes (Dick, 206-7). It was expected that jewellery would be classed as a luxury, together with unset stones and similar raw materials (Dick, 211). Much of the media coverage on this issue was directed at working class women who had more disposable income than before the war as they filled positions left vacant by males serving overseas (Dick, 212). The media claimed lower classes women were envious of upper class women and wanted to imitate them, an attitude which was very similar to that expressed previously in respect of the need for sumptuary laws.

The Board gave Hughes three reports in June and July 1917, the last one containing a list of imported luxuries to be targeted but the Prime Minister acted on none of them as he was beginning to realise how unpopular the measures might be. Instead, he sought advice from senior bureaucrats who suggested reducing the list of luxuries. One list proposed that ‘jewellery-including cameos, precious stones and imitation jewellery’ (Dick, 224) should be considered as extravagances. In August, a list of prohibited luxuries was proclaimed. It did include jewellery but only imitation jewellery and imitation gemstones (Dick, 225), a rather strange result. Jewellery items made of gold and precious stones were not items of luxury but imitation jewellery pieces were. This certainly seemed to be aimed at trying to maintain existing class structures rather than freeing up funds for the war effort. The Luxuries Board apparently did not submit any further reports.

References:

Caroline Dick, ‘Sumptuary law by any other name: manifestations of sumptuary regulation in Australia, 1901-1927’, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Faculty of Law, Humanities & the Arts, University of Wollongong, 2015, https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5498&context=theses