Rubber Industry?
pp. 65-67 · Read in the full issue
Ustralian Tariff Board
Vants To Know:
should There Be A Papuan Rubber Industry?
From Our Own Correspondent History of a kind was made in Port Moresby on November 11, when the Australian Tariff Board began hearing evidence from Papuan rubber planters. It was the first time that the Tariff Board had heard evidence outside Australia.
IHE Board heard evidence for seven hours and the next day flew to Kerema to inspect plantation. rhe case for the Association was t by the president, Mr. B. irfax-Ross who said the practical ;thod of assuring a market in istralia would be by the removal import tax.
Vlr. Pairfax-Ross said it seemed distinct advantage to Australia it rubber could be grown in its n Territory. The chairman, Mr. iCarthy replied that it would not much advantage if it would be heavy drain on Federal revenue keep it going.
During the hearing, Mr. McCarthy, re the impression that he was ; going to have anything put over a by the planters and was quick show that the Board would have be convinced that the industry lly needed assistance, t seemed that the planters were ittle surprised.
he Manufacturers , Case
n the Brisbane sitting of the ird, evidence was given on ialf of the rubber manufacturers Australia by Mr. R. H. Simkin, istant General Manager of flop in Australia. He represented flop Rubber (Australia) Ltd., )dyear Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd., mpic Consolidated Industries Hardie Rubber Co. Ltd., Cable kers (Australia) Ltd., North Aus ian Rubber Mills and Apex ting Co. Together they repre ted 95 per cent of the rubber sumed in Australia, i his submission on behalf of se companies he made these its.
As a bounty ceased to be paid a apuan rubber in October, 1933, it id be presumed that the industry then able to stand on its own and that duty collected sub lently was merely a revenue lucing measure. In this connec , the manufacturers believed - duty on all rubber, whatever source, was unwarranted and an ist impost on the rubber manu uring industry. They con led that all duty should be
removed, in the interests of the Australian consumer.
• Papuan growers had faded to nmke their industry economic and efficient; their case for remission of 2d was based on the period of ad justment following rubber stock piling; there were prospects of better prices in immediate future; and the present price should, in any event, be profitable. • The present voluntary system of marketing could not continue in definitely as it was unfair to manu facturers—and the 2d per pound remission of duty on Papuan rubber would be of benefit to the planters only so long as the manufacturers continued under the present system. • If the Board found that the Papuan industry should have as sistance, assistance should be by an mdustria! bounty so that the cost would be borne by the community
generally and not only by the pubber manufacturers and the con sumers of their products. The manu facturers wanted to make it clear that in their opinion the Pool has never functioned properly as a merchandising organisation.
In answer to questions from members of the Board, Mr. Simkin said that the manufacturers did not think it a strategic advantage to have a rubber supply in Papua; —that in the event of war, all strategic materials would be pooled jv the Allies as had been done 3efore, and Australia would get ittle advantage from having Papuan rubber.
Although Mr. Simkin submitted hat the manufacturers were under i disadvantage because of the jresent method of selling by the tool and through the manufacturers’ roluntary agreement to pay the 10 >er cent, primage which, in effect, /as returned to the producers, the Chairman of the Board said that le had yet to be convinced that the nanufacturers were under any dis idvantage whatever in buying >apuan rubber under the present ystem.
In regard to Mr. Simkin’s ptimism in regard to the future of übber, he asked if manufacturers /ould therefore be prepared to uarantee Papuan growers 16 per iound for their rubber for the next ive years. Mr. Simkin said they /ould not.