Unhappy Planters In

Solomons

Resentful of British Administration and Policy

(CONDITIONS in the British Solomons j provide a good example of what hap pens in an under-developed British tropical territory under a Socialist regime.

Before World War 11, it was the policy of the British Colonial office to encourage private enterprise to go into such places and develop their resources. There was not much to develop in the Solomons then —copra was not greatly in demand—but a good type of planter was at least assisted to make his home there.

To-day, there appears to be nearly double the pre-war number of public ser vants in BSI; but the production of copra —in quantity—is probably no more than half the pre-war volume. The Adminis tration’s pre-war policy of encouraging private enterprise has been replaced by a laissez-faire attitude that is taken to mean that, while officialdom is indifferent about the condition of non-official Euro peans, it is intensely pre-occupied with native welfare.

The net result, of course, is seen in three things—discontented and resentful Europeans, spoiled natives and a heavy additional burden upon the British tax payer. Only a handfull of the planters and traders who were driven out by the war have returned to the Solomons.

In some respects, conditions in BSI are almost a duplicate of conditions in Papua- New Guinea. In the latter country, the Socialist policy, directed from Canberra, discourages private enterprise, spoils the natives, makes non-official Europeans non-co-operative and resentful, and throws an enormously increased burden upon the Australian exchequer. Before the war, Papua-New Goinea was almost self-supporting, and BSI was only a little less so.

IN a comparison, however, the planters who have returned to the Solomons are worse off than the Australian non-officials in Papua-New Guinea.

The Australians got war damage com pensation from a fund created for that purpose in war-time; BSI got nothing at all. The Australians escape taxation — although they are heavily taxed through import duties —but they lose from £lO to £I2A per ton on their copra. The latter is taken from them by Canberra as (a) export tax and (b) some mysterious de duction —which Canberra so far has re fused to explain—called “stabilisation fund.” The BSI planters have to pay an export tax; and, also, they are savagely mulcted in income tax. It is only 1/3 in the £ on the first £1,500 of income; but, after that, the rise is so steep that, around £5,000, a big trader can lose a large part of his income.

The collection of income tax in BSI — something new since the war —is an evil imposition. Income tax should be im posed only when the citizen receives, from his government, substantial ameni ties and encouragement. BSI is such a primitive country that it gives its Euro pean residents practically nothing in the way of amenities —someone said lately that “The BSI, to-day, is at the same stage of development as England was in the time of the Romans.”

"117’E are so sick of administrative pin- Tf pricks, and official indifference to European welfare, that we should welcome any move for transfer to Aus tralian government,” said a BSI planter recently. “We pay an import tax of 17a per cent, an export tax of 15 per cent, on our copra, and now we are faced with heavy income tax.”

Other residents say that, although non officials, who lost everything, get no war damage compensation at all, all officials who were affected by the Jap invasion have been given, secretly, a sum of £5O each, as compensation for the loss of their personal effects.

It is anticipated that there soon will be a new Resident Commissioner in the Solomons (Mr. Noel, who has been away on long leave, is not expected to return, and Mr. A. Germond, MBE. has been acting RC); but no change in policy is expected while the Socialists rule Britain.