Copra-Producers’ Plight

In The British Solomons

Letter to the Editor IT has been stated that the copra pro ducers of the Pacific accepted the nine years’ marketing agreement with the British Ministry of Food. This may be correct so far as New Guinea, Papua, Fiji, and other groups are concerned, but it is not the case with Solomon Islands growers.

In October, 1948, the European planters of BSI (who produce approximately 90 per cent, of the copra exported) were in vited to meet the Copra Board at Honiara to discuss an agreement which had been offered by the British Ministry of Food through the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific (in Fiji) to the Resident Commissioner for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.

The Chairman of the Board informed the meeting of the proposal and outlined the conditions offered by the British

M.O.F.

A discussion took place and, after an adjournment to allow the planters to talk over the matter among themselves, the planters’ spokesman informed the Chair man that the offer was not acceptable.

A further meeting took place a fort night later, on the same lines, when the Chairman of the Board stated that a majority of the “producers” had indicated to him in the meantime that they were in favour of acceptance of the proposal.

This statement was challenged. Not one European producer at either meeting spoke in favour of the acceptance of the offer. Any majority of producers could only have been a majority of native pro ducers who have never produced more than a small fraction of the output of copra in the 8.5.1. P. In any case no formal ballot of copra producers, either native or European, was ever taken by the 8.5.1. P. Government and no written agreement was ever submitted by them for examination and approval.

Th e Chairman of the Board stated that he had received a radio communi rom Fiji outlining the British Mt.O.F. offer, and he asked the European planters present at the meetings to accept

the proposal.

The proposal might have been accepted if the 8.5.1. P. Government had been pre pared to concede certain points brought |ip by the planters, one of which was "hat the price offered (£4B stg., subject to annual revisions not exceeding 10 per cent p.a.) should be in Australian currency (£6O Aust.). and another that the government would undertake not to in crease the export duty (15 per cent.) dur ng the term of the agreement.

VTOTWITHSTANDING the rejection of 16 British M.O.F. proposal, the 8.5.1. P. Government have taken over all ;opra produced in the group on behalf of British M.0.F., and paid to the planters .he Ministry of Food price only less 15 Der cent, export duty (on the full M.O.F. and not on the actual value at the 3ort of export) and also less handling charges computed on a scale which appears to unduly favour the “handlers.”

BSI - P - planter has thus been placed in a most invidious position by arbitrary aetion which, in view of the present high world parity price of copra, amounts to confiscation of nearly half rL V r Ue f crop. In addition, he pays i scale of income tax without precedent °, ther tropical country in the racmc, plus a particularly heavy and

economically stupid super-tax. It is calculated that on a production valued at £13,000 net (after deducting cost of pro-

duction) at world parity prices, his final return is less than £3,000.

The result of these burdens is that the

Solomon Group is economically stagnant, and no sane person would dream of developing new plantation properties of any kind. The ground rents for plantation lands are high—amounting to as much

as 6/- per acre per annum. The Govern ment is unable to even maintain the roads and bridges left as a legacy by the U.S. occupation forces. The European planters who provide most of the taxa

tion collected by the Government receive practically nothing in the way ofl amenities or social services. All these things mean that the Group must remain backward and undeveloped, notwith standing present high prices of tropical produce.

It seems a pity that a country such as the Solomon Islands with infinite possi bilities of development cannot be ad ministered as part of the Papua-New, Guinea set up, instead of being con demned to Colonial Office stagnation.

I am, etc.,

Planter.

Sydney. 24/2/51.