Comment by President of Planters' Association

Copra Marketing Plan In New Guinea

Letter to the Editor

NO doubt planters in this Territory read with interest the article pub lished in September “PIM” under the heading, “Copra Marketing Plan Under Fire”. Personally, speaking as one who has followed the slow progress of the Commonwealth Government’s plan to give permanent relief to New Guinea copra-growers, I consider it does not give a true picture of the present and past position.

The sum total of the article indicates that the Commonwealth Government, the Administration and the planters of this Territory are trying to create a position which is unbearable and opposed to the interests of the big local trading firms, lam sure this is far from being the case For those who have short and con venient memories, I should like to take

their minds back to the conditions which existed in New Guinea from June, 1940 to June, 1941.

I quote here the opening paragraph of a letter which I received from one of the big trading firms: “We regret to have to advise you that until further notice we are forced to cease purchasing your copra”. Other letters could be quoted. From another trading firm, a letter demanding payment in advance for supplies before orders would be executed —this after many years of trading on a credit basis.

This was the state of affairs that existed in 1940-41. Copra producers faced bankruptcy. Is it any wonder they turned to the Administration and Canberra for assistance? It was considered by most planters that, as the impasse was due solely to war conditions, the copra in dustry should be placed under Govern ment control and receive Government assistance.

To our early request, the Federal Gov ernment instructed the NG Administration to assist those planters who were finan cially strangled by offering them 4 per cent, interest-bearing loans. This action was appreciated, and was availed of by many; but it was evident that this alone could not solve the then difficult position.

In short, temporary relief at interest would only involve the growers and further burden them financially.

After consultation with the Adminis tration, managers of the three principal trading firms and mission societies, a scheme to give permanent relief to the industry under Government control was placed before the Commonwealth Gov ernment in September, 1940, by the executive of the Planters’ Association of New Guinea (see “PIM”, November, 1940, p. 29, “NG Plan to Aid Copra Industry”).

If one studies the scheme referred to, it will be recognised that many of the salient points now are contained in the Copra Control Regulations which came into operation in October, 1941.

As late as June, 1941, a number of New Guinea planters had given up curing copra. Others , had signed off practically all their labour. The upkeep of the plan tations was being neglected. In many other cases, copra had accumulated on the plantation for months with the owner unable to sell.

I take it for granted that the writer of your article was fully cognisant of the Copra Control Regulations, gazetted in June, 1941. Yet the article infers that the terms and conditions of the regula tions had only just been forced on an unwilling group of vitally interested firms, whereas, in fact, the regulations were gazetted three months before it was written.

Who could imagine the regulations to mean other than a compulsory pool?

Again, where is it exnressed in the regu lations that “the New Guinea Copra Committee was to have absolute authority in disposing of the copra”? The Govern ment clearly stated that a Pacific Mar keting Board or some marketing authority would dispose of the copra.

Again, who is the authority to say “the procedure would almost certainly result in a serious diminution in the nett return planters otherwise would receive for the copra they produced”? I should say that the reverse of this statement would be more than a probability.

Why did “important copra interests beg the Commonwealth Government to let the industry run free”? Every planter could give a reasonable answer to that question. I would say because the firms

have their own interests solely at heart.

These company interests state “some marketing plan probably was necessary to assist the industry early in 1941; there was no necessity for it now”. This from the firms who shut down on the industry 12 months ago, and probably would do so again if similar conditions existed.

No-one but a fool is going to throw away the substance for the shadow, the substance being £4/10/- per ton at plantation, in addition, profits made by sales of copra to be distributed among contributors to the pool, and guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government under National Security Regulations.

Why should the article advance the case of the big firms? Why not consider the interests of private individuals as well? Many men and women have the best years of their life’s work at stakethis surely should be taken into account when values are the consideration. t mint** op'Ciin* “Mnrh of thp npw r uinßeinvestments of the bis firms have ma^ical^^gone 11 west’ ’ \ 6 Who *said so?

Quote again: “Under the recent moratorium the firms now have no control whatever over the plantations on which they advanced money”. One would imagine that the Mortgagors' Relief Ordinance is to remain in force until the end of time, whereas in fact it has less than 12 months to run. The advance mentioned in many cases consisted mainly of highly-priced goods and commodities charged to the producer plus 8 per cent. interest Many clients were “talked” into buving a nice new expensive car or other luxury when the big firms should have known their clients’ financial position warranted no more than a pushbike or less Balance sheets will show how badlv hit the big firms have been One feature of the Copra Control Regulations is that should the copra situation collapse, the big firms’ interests would be safeguarded by-the Government,

inasmuch as copra would continue to be purchased. Therefore, property values would not depreciate to any great extent. we should like to draw your attention to Hon. Gerald Hogan’s second reading speech on the Mortgagors’ Relief Ordinance a t the NG Legislative Council’s recent meeting. If further evidence is necessary to support the Government’s contention that the Amendment to the Mortgagors’ Relief Ordinance was undoubtedly essential, we have in our possession evidence of the crippling interest charges that formed a substantial portion of many copra-producers’ costs.

Tf th bi firms in future will not 1 Wanting enterprise it will be fhel? foss P Under the “New Order” nroriYirprs hone to see established a Finance it has been a shameful neglect on n 0 a f S the Government that such werenot availableyears aeo h 'f the o.hhJeak of the Present war Sinco tine outbreak oi tn.o proSonx war, Australia’s demand for copra has steadily increased. To-day. planters may expect to see a very large percentage, if not

homl

consigned to Australia. With the home S cnsUmptlo r n i^^ ai fov«7avH SSi, ducers may look forward with confidence manaser of one of the bis The « laL as this month firms assured me as J^f d ! Relcom™ ?he that ms company would welcome me pool system, and that he personally, was one of the first in this Territory to advocate the compulsory pool system. Why shouldn’t he be?—the system has many advantages. Being a Government measure, its conduct is open to criticism, if criticism is wanted. Trading firms are invited to co-operate with the Government in disposing of the copra of this Territory and, which is important, the Governments of all British countries and its Allies are its agents.

For many years the “PIM” has ad-

vocated co-operation in the Pacific, in regard to the copra industry. Here, in my opinion, is the answer. Never before, in Pacific history, has such an opportunity for co-operation presented itself. As private individuals, the same success would take years, if ever, to achieve, and yet the Government has done all this with no cost to the industry. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Government has sub sidised the industry to the extent of the cost of inter-island freights, which will, I estimate, amount to over £50,000 p.a.

With the scheme thus far advanced, there are many signs to indicate that its continuance is absolutely necessary. The local Copra Control Board, in their un tiring efforts, have already overcome many obstacles. They are to be congra tulated for the manner in which they have played their part. Let us, as pro ducers and merchants, play ours. Let our motto be “One for all and all for one!"

I am, etc.,

H. Adams, Mlc,

President, Planters’ Association of New Guinea.

Rabaul, TNG. 22/10/1941.

Mr. L. Odgers, of the NG District Ser vices Department, has been transferred from Rabaul to Wewak. Formerly he was a member of the staff of the Cus toms Department, Mr. W. G. Robinson, well-known Suva businessman, has left the Colony after 37 years’ residence. Prior to his depar ture, Mr. Robinson was entertained by residents and representatives of various sporting bodies, who presented him with an inscribed cigarette case. Mr. Robinson took a keen interest in horse racing in the Colony and, in addition to racing his own horses, was official starter at the Brighton Park course.

Mr. “Jock” Marshall, former president of the Pacific Islands Society, and well known authority on bird life in the Pacific, is now the self-styled “Backyard Naturalist” for the Australian Broad casting Commission. His mail nowadays is chock full of specimens that range from bugs to fossils of the Pleistocene period, not to mention crocodile teeth and an occasional leg bone from an Islands marsupial. Incidentally, the popularity of these potted scientific discourses has been proved by the quantity of “fan” mail that this enterprising young Australian, who is as well known in New Guinea as he is in the New Hebrides, receives from all parts of Australasia. In addition, he is Tutor in Zoology at St. Paul’s College, University of Sydney, and manages to find time for journalistic activities.