Rubber Industry Languishes

Canberra Fiddles While Papuan Rubber Industry Languishes

A WEEK-END announcement from Canberra in mid-April, that the Federal Government intended to “develop extensively the rubber industry of Papua and'New r Guinea” served two purposes: It filled up a blank space on the ABC National news—w r hich is al ways in short supply at week-ends; and it, no doubt, impressed main land Australians who know nothing about the languishing Papuan rub ber industry and care less.

Otherwise it was useless. More, it was an insult to the intelligence of present-day rubber planters, who have been battling for some years to get practical help from' the present Australian government, now, when it is needed.

According to the statement, the four ways in which the Govern ment is to assist rubber production are: • Replanting of low rubber-pro ducing areas with high-yielding trees. • Opening of new areas for rub ber growing.

• Intensified research. • Improved methods of prepar ing rubber for market.

The four points are the result of recommendations made by Mr. C.

E. T. Mann, director of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya.

There is nothing wrong with any one of them—as long-term plans.

The announcement, with its worn out implication that PNG can pro vide all the rubber Australia re quires, was strictly political boost for home consumption and evident ly not intended for the ears of planters who, not unnaturally, are interested in the problems of the moment and not those of 10 years hence.

Briefly the requirements of the Papuan rubber industry to-day are: (1) That the price received for rubber should return the pro ducers a fair margin of profit.

(2) That there should he a stable and continuous market for the\r rubber in Australia.

With regard to (1); Like the rest of the ' rubber-producing world, Papua is suffering from the present recession in rubber prices and only a few old-established planters and companies are making profits. How ever, relief for Papuan planters could be gained in two ways—by the remission of the 2d per pound duty now levied on Papuan rubber on its entry into Australia (the 2d being returned to planters by way of a bounty or bonus), and by the manufacturers in Australia paying first-grade rubber price for first grade Papuan rubber instead, as at present, the Papuan producers be ing forced to accept third-grade rubber prices for all grades of rub ber. (The waiving of the 2d. per pound duty has been extending the brains of several Australian Government departments for a matter of years.

It was .at first assumed that this 2d. could not be waived without the permission of GATT. Permission from GATT was obtained last October, but the 2d. per pound duty remained in force. It was then be lieved that application would have to be made to the Australian Tariff Board, but it was subsequently stated that it could be removed by legislative action. At the end of April, 1954, the duty has not been

removed —possibly because the Treasury is quibbling over the miser able £50,000 revenue loss that it would entail).

AND with regard to (2): Papua produces 3,000 tons of rubber a year, about one-tenth of

Australia’s requirements. For five months in late 1952 and early 1953, Australian manufacturers refused to take any Papuan rubber at all and, apart from buying 400 tons for its own stockpile, the Australian government could not, or would not,

do anything to ensure that the Aus tralian manufacturers used suffi cient of what the government evi dently regards as a strategic ma terial, to keep the Papuan industry solvent. There is no guarantee that this situation will not arise again.

It is apparent that the Govern ment will do everything for the Papuan rubber industry— short of the two simple things that would help it to its feet, immediately. If planters know that there is a profitable and sure market for their produce, expansion of the industry will follow naturally, to the limits imposed by availability of land and labour. Little or no Government assistance will then be necessary.

It is obviously useless planting up new areas with high-yielding or any other trees if there is no guarantee of reasonable profits and a steady demand when they come into bearing eight or 10 years later.

As things stand at the moment, the Papuan rubber industry could have faded completely away in that time.

This Australian government, so far as Papua-New Guinea is con cerned, has fallen into a belief that the proof that a thing can be grown, or that theoretically it can be done, is an end in itself. The acid test of the worth of the rubber (or any other) industry is whether it can provide a livelihood, and expand and make profits for those who put their money and their labour and their time into it. Anything less is sheer fiddling about—erecting a fancy superstructure, while the foundations crack and threaten to disintegrate.