In N. Guinea
p. 68 · Read in the full issue
Cotton And Flour
Protest Against Prices Brings Only Political "Blah-Blah"
THE Australian Minister for Customs (Senator Courtice), on April 29, sent the following letter to Mr. H. L.
Anthony, MP. It is self-explanatory:— I refer to my letter concerning your personal representations on behalf of a number of residents of New Guinea who have approached you protesting— (l) against the increase in the Com monwealth cotton subsidy repay ment on cotton goods exported to New -Guinea. This has been in creased from 1/3 to 4/8 per lb.; and (2) that although the price of wheat in the Commonwealth is on a home consumption basis, the Govern ment imposes upon residents of the Pacific Islands, under Common wealth jurisdiction, rates for flour fixed on a high export price.
I would now advise that, as regards (1) above, the standard rates of recovery on cotton piecegoods were increased from 1/8 to 4/8 per lb. from March 1, 1948, in con formity with the increased cost of subsidy being paid. The rate was fixed arbitrarily, but if traders could prove to the satis faction of the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner that a lower rate of sub sidy had been paid, then such lower rate of subsidy would be collected.
A revised scale of recovery, based on the particular types of cotton goods be ing exported, has since been instituted and this has had the effect of sub stantially reducing the standard rate of subsidy recovery on cotton material.
Traders still have the privilege of repaying a lower rate if they can prove that such a lower rate was, in fact, paid by sub sidy in the first instance.
As regards the representations made concerning wheat and flour, I have as certained that the price of wheat out side the Commonwealth has always been based on prevailing export prices. Within the Commonwealth, since 1938, the home consumption price for flour has been kept constant. This has been managed by a tax borne by consumers when prices were low, which gave the wheat-growers the home price, and when wheat prices rose a corresponding concession was made by growers.
In effect, it was agreed to keep the local price at a reasonable figure, irres pective of world market fluctuations, and at different times consumers have borne the cost of doing this.
In the case of areas outside the Com monwealth there has not been any ar rangement of this kind. They had the benefit of low prices for many years and Australian wheat-growers now cannot reasonably be expected to bring them the benefits of an arrangement to which these areas have never contributed.
I would add that the rates for flour are not imposed by the Commonwealth Gov ernment, but the flour for the areas men tioned is sold on a basis similar to that which has always operated.
EDITORIAL NOTE: The Minister, in the way of typical politicians, evades the real point of the protest made by Mr.
Anthony—namely, that it is grossly un fair that these heavy export taxes should be imposed by Australia upon her own Territories. The Territories are com pelled to trade with Australia and can not go abroad to seek more competition and favourable rates, and they have no voice or representation in the Australian Parliament. Why should the helpless Territories, already sweating under high and increasing costs of living, be treated by the Minister simply as a place out side the Commonwealth”?