Australia’S Copra Stabilisation
pp. 21-23 · Read in the full issue
Fund
Minister Says The Deduction Goes On Indefinitely
AN attempt by a former New Guinea planter, Mr. H. G. W. Hanson, to get some indication of whether he is entitled to any of the conra-trade money that the Australian Government has accumulated in (a) Stabilisation Fund and (b) Production Control Board profits, has brought from the retiring Australian Minister for Territories (Mr. Spender) an interesting statement of policy.
Mr. Hanson now is a resident of Gos ford, NSW. He and his partner, Mr.
Alf Priebe, planted up a big plantation (Samo) in Namatanai, New Ireland, which was last year sold to Chinese interests in Rabaul. It was provided in the sale con tract that monies accruing from the plantation’s production prior to the sale —such as deductions taken by the Govern ment for stabilisation fund, and profits made by the PC Board, out of copra handled, be returned to the producers— should belong to Messrs. Hanson and Priebe.
Finding it impossible to ascertain from the New Guinea Administration or from Canberra what is to be administration policy in regard to return of stabilisation fund monies or distribution of FCB profits, Mr. Hanson saw his local member, Mr, R. L. Dean, MP. Mr. Dean approached Mr. Spender. Here is the Minister’s reply:— “In view of the security afforded to the industry by the agreement with the United Kingdom, the view has been ex pressed in some quarters that there is no need for a copra stabilisation fund. How ever, after a review of the matter, this Government felt that the agreement did not in itself provide the full measure of security that is so important to this vital Territory industry, and it therefore de cided that stabilisation must continue.
“Recent copra prices have been favour able for producers, even after allowance for amounts paid to the Stabilisation Fund, it is proposed that this fund should be the nucleus of a scheme to stabilise the Territory copra industry, and details of a comprehensive scheme are under consideration. . . , “Although the draft scheme of stabilisation for the Terrotory will be based upon the needs of the Territory and the copra industry, the principles adopted oy the Government in regard to stabilis ation schemes generally cannot be dis
regarded in the formulation of a scheme for the Territory.
“Under such schemes in relation to Australian primary products generally, contributions are not available to be re funded to producers when they sell their properties or sever their connection with the industry.
“On the question of funds accumulated by the Production Control Board, the practice is to pay producers tentative prices for their copra on delivery to the Board, and declare a final price each year in the light of actual trading results.
This arrangement is based on the prin ciple that, after making a provision for both actual and contingent trading costs and expenses, any balance of proceeds available is distributed in full to the industry.
“A sum of £75,000 has recently been distributed to complete the final copra prices in respect of the year 1949-50.”
Editorial Comment
PLANTERS might feel better about the Stabilisation Fund if they had some idea of how the Canberra bureau crats propose to effect stabilisation, if and when stabilisation is required. So far, there has not been the slightest indication of what the “experts” may have in mind.
Stabilised!, of course, is needed when the market collapses—in other words, when the consumers cannot absorb all the copra that is offered. This is a world industry—almost every nation figures in It, either as producer or consumer. What could a group of Canberra bureaucrats, even if equipped with millions of Aus tralian pounds, do to stabilise the New Guinea copra industry in time of over -si^S d * 1 i Ct o 0n pay a straight-out subsidy? Mr. Spender’s reference to “a committee which is to assist the govern ment in working out details of a stabilis ation scheme.” and “a draft scheme of stabilisation . . based upon the needs of the Territory” may be dismissed as merelv politician’s blah-blah.
Under the British guarantee, another five years at least must elapse before copra producers can feel a really cold breeze in other words, before there can be any call upon the Stabilisation Fund. If the Sf,T t « 1 n e n S n a . verage production is no more that 65,000 tons per annum, and the £5 per ton deduction is maintained, a simple
calculation shows that the Stabilisation Fund by 1956 will hold over £3,000,000.
It has been reported that representatives of the New Guinea Planters’ Association will be admitted to the Committee which is supposed to have charge of this Fund.
It is to be hoped that the planters will insist on that. Even in these days of inflation and depreciated currency, £3,000,000 is too healthy a sum to be left kicking around at the mercy of Canberra politicians and bureaucrats. Every penny of it was (or will be) earned by New Guinea planters, and the planters should guard it jealously.
The Minister’s reflection that “recent copra prices have been favourable,” and producers therefore will not mind the deduction, is typical of Southern ignorance of Territories conditions.
The price which producers are getting is good, but not phenomenal. It would have been phenomenal before World War II; but the costs of production are now so fantastic—and still are rising!—that to day’s MOF contract price is not nearly so favourable as Mr. Spender imagines. It would have been a different story if Britain had held to her original MOF con tract, and paid for the copra in the Sterling that was stipulated when the contract was made (before de-valuation).
As it is, by the de-valuation trickery, the South Pacific copra-producers are being robbed of £3O per ton. But, of course, the Australian Minister wouldn’t know anything about that!