No Export Tax On Australian Goods
pp. 75-76 · Read in the full issue
Sent To New Guinea
IN recent months we have had many complaints from Territorians who state that “export” taxes are being imposed on certain Australian commodi ties when shipped to New Guinea.
At the end of January we received a letter from a resident of Rabaul who said: “The following export taxes are being levied on these goods coming from Aus tralia: Rice—£l3 per ton; Edible fats— £66 per ton; Tea—l/4 per pound. These articles are included in the native ration scale and are purchased also by village natives. If Canberra is so concerned for native welfare, why the severe tax?”
Thereupon we decided to take a few hours off and track down any information relating to this alleged tax; To find out if it did exist, and if so, by whom it was imposed, and why.
V/e tried, first, the Department of Com merce and Agriculture. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture assured us thev had never heard of it; they did not. in fact, believe that such a tax existed.
They advised us to try the Department of Supply and Shipping. The Depart ment of Supply and Shipping told us plainly that we were in the wrong De partment—it was the Department of Trade and Customs that we wanted, they said.
We tried the Department of Trade and Customs. They had never heard of any export tax either; certainly it was not one of their inventions and definitely not an “export” tax. We should try the De partment of Commerce and Agriculture, We said we had: and we were advised to trv them again, asking for a Mr. Mit chell.
This time we wrote a letter to the De partment of Commerce and Agriculture, in which we explained that residents of New Guinea were complaining of what they alleged was an “export Tax” on such items as rice, edible fats and tea.
Our letter continued: Inquiries made of various Departments here have revealed that there is no such “export tax”—at least not under that name. But as there seems some basis for the complaints of New Guinea residents, it is probable that the dif ference between Australian fixed prices and those fixed in the Territory for these com modities is caused by the* withdrawal of a Government bounty which applies only to land Australia.
If this is the case would you please inform us: (a) what is the tax called—it apparently is not “export tax”; (b) what is the amount in respect of the goods mentioned—that is, rice, edible fats and tea; and (c) the reasons, if any. why Australia’s external Territory of Papua-New Guinea, which is still administered “Provision ally” under National Security Regulations (or whatever regulations have taken their place) should in this particular be classed as foreign?
In due course we received the following
reply:
I acknowledge your letter of January 30, 1947, concerning complaints from readers in Papua- New Guinea.
It is regretted that I am not in a position to answer these questions, but it is felt that the Department of External Territories may be in a position to give you the required information Consequently, your letter has been forwarded to Mr. Leak, of that Department, and no doubt he will be writing to you in due course.
Tours, etc.,
R. W. Mitchell.
For Department of Commerce and Agriculture. (Continued next page)
Up to the time of going to press we have received no advice from Mr. Leak, nor do we expect to receive any.
It seems obvious, however, that the “Tax" of which Territorians complain, is not an export tax at all. but an increase in price caused by the withdrawal of a domestic bounty which does not apply to Australian Territories. The exact amount of the bounties applicable to the commodities referred to by our corres pondent (rice, edible fats and tea) is so far not known to us.
Sir Henry Scott, KC, of Suva, Fiji, has been reappointed legal advisor to the Fijian Affairs Board for a further period of two years with effect from January, 1947.