Rice—To Have or Have Not, That

IS a Question

AUSTRALIA’S great rice mystery deepens. Some months ago house wives were told that they probably would be permitted to have some rice (for the first time in eight or nine years) towards the end of this year. Later, they were told that this was doubtful— because of the “Korean situation.’

Apparently some Australian grocers have decided that General MacArthur has the Korean situation well enough in hand for them to beat the gun in the matter of home consumption of rice—they are al ready selling it to their customers.

For years the Australian public has been taught to believe that the rice they were not permitted to buy was going to save Pacific Islanders and needy Asiatics from starvation, but blasts of publicity have recently set them wonder ing if the restriction does not hinge more on the better price obtained by growers on the export market.

Growers get £lB per ton for rice sold in Australia: £2l if they export it. The distinction seems ridiculous as it is doubtful if even the most woolly-minded bureaucrat imagines that the Australian export market is there to stay.

Before the war Australia exported no rice at all and had no hope of com peting on the open market with Burmese and other rice from Asia. Although these Asiatic countries have been slow to re cover, for obvious reasons, it is almost certain that they will make a bid for the export market again and Burmese exporters are already offering rice on the world markets.

Australians are no rice eaters at the best of times—the cereal is usually asso ciated with a stodgy milk-pudding—and after eight years most of them will have to be sold the idea of eating it again.

If growers had to depend on a home market, the greatly expanded rice-growing industry would probably deflate as quickly as a pricked bubble —more acres are be ing planted up and prices for rice-farms have reached fabulous levels.

It mav be that the economist wizards behind the present set-up are banking on the hope that Papua-New Guinea will be a close preserve for the output of Aus tralian rice-growers, but when, or if.

Burma and Indo-China come back into the competitive field it may be diffi cult to deny them markets in the Trust eeship Territory of New Guinea — although, presumably. Australia can place what restrictions she likes on the imports of Papua.

Planters (and others) in Papua-New Guinea today are paying about £7O a ton for Australian rice. This is six or seven times more than they paid for rice before the war. The Australian grower gets £23. Something like £47 is eaten up in mysterious “costs” along the way.

Paoua-New Guinea residents would like to know how.

THERE seems to be as much hocus pocus about rice now as there was about petrol a year or so ago. Early this year the Menzies Government to keep an election promise, removed petrol rationing in Australia. The United King dom government was hurt about this and the New Zealand Government repledged itself to stick by the Old Country and not to embarrass her in her hour of dire dollar need. Mysterious things about the dollar-content of all petrol, the wicked thine-s the Jews were doing to the Haifa pipeline, shortage of tankers and oil stocks generally were whispered about.

It was hinted that if Australians burned up petrol having fun and games, other parts of the British Commonwealth

would be deprived of the vital fuel. A few months later, without warning,’ the United Kingdom abandoned petrol ration ing. Someone had forgotten to tell the self-sacrificing- New Zealand Government —Prime Minister Holland read about it in his morning paper. Suitably incensed he removed petrol rationing in New Zealand forthwith. One dav there was no petrol available, except to the selfish Australians. Next day there was plenty for all.

A similar sort of situation now seems to exist in relation to rice. It is hard to believe five years after the war that only the Australian rice grower stands between South Asia and Oceania and starvation. The time seems opportune for

an investigation into the whole rice sup ply system—particularly into the disap pearance of that £47 between the grower m Australia and the consumer in NG.