Papuan Rubber

Lt.-Governor Pleads for Retention of Austra lian Preference Duty.

A STRONG plea on behalf of the Papuan rubber-growers was made by Sir Hubert Murray (Lieut.-Gover nor of Papua) when he visited Can berra early in January.

The special preference of 4d. per lb. imposed by the Federal Government last year in favour of rubber grown in Australian territories has been the sal vation of Papuan rubber-growers; and Sir Hubert in consequence was much disturbed to learn that rubber con sumers in Australia are trying to get that preference removed.

“So far as I am aware.” said Sir Hubert, in a public statement, “no rub ber has been planted in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea. It has been cultivated successfully for many years in Papua but development has been hindered by the uncertainty of the price. Rubber grown in either terri tory has a preference of 4d. a lb. in the Commonwealth; that is rubber from those territories is admitted into Australia free of duty, while other rubber has to pay a duty of 4d. a lb.

“This preference is just sufficient to make rubber growing in Papua a pay able proposition; but it is feared that importers in Australia may succeed in getting the preference removed. There is not as yet sufficient rubber produced in Papua to supply the Australian mar ket, and the Australian consumer has, therefore, to use a lot of rubber from Malaya and elsewhere, on which duty has been paid. Naturally, therefore, the importer and the consumer wish to get rid of the duty.

“Their case seems at first sight a good one, but consider what the effect would be on Papua if the duty were removed. The rubber plantations would immediately close down and their clos ure would have a disastrous effect upon the storekeepers and merchants who

had been supplying the rubber plant ers and their staff of European and native employees. Many storekeepers and merchants would be driven out of business, and the general dislocation of business would Cause the ruin of many coconut plantations, which at present prices are barely paying their way.

“All this would mean the loss of a very large amount of Australian cap ital that has been invested in Papua.

It would also cause great embarrass ment to the Papuan Government and would probably necessitate an increase in the subsidy at present granted by the Commonwealth—for it would be im possible for the Commonwealth to al low Papua, its only overseas territory, to go to the wall.

“On the other hand, if the prefer ence were adopted as an integral part of the Commonwealth’s territorial pol icy, rubber-growing would become a certain and payable proposition. Plant ers could then count upon a firm mar ket at a reasonable price, confidence in the future of the industry would be restored and fresh areas would be de veloped until the output would be suffi cient to supply the Australian demand.

There is an abundance of good rubber land in Papua, and that territory alone could supply Australian requirements if planters could be sure of a reason able price.

“It is apparent, therefore, from the broader point of view, that the free importation of rubber would be pur chased at too high a price. The duty need not always remain at 4d. For instance, if the price rose to 1/- it would be absurd for Papua to expect any assistance. The duty might be made a sliding one, so as to ensure a price of, say, 8d.”

EDITORIAL NOTE. —The export of rubber in Papua in recent years has been as follows:

Those figures show the disastrous fall in the price of the product and why a prefer ence is necessary. On December 31, 1929, there were 9,012 acres in Papua under rub ber, mostly in the Central Division. A con siderable number of rubber plantations are owned by the Government.

Year.

Tons.

Value. 1928 811 £102,158 1929 470 48,616 1930 764 50,640