Tobacco Duty Could Endanger Industries
p. 71 · Read in the full issue
Non-official members of the Legislative Council who represent P-NG industries that are looking to Australia for an increasing market, fought hard in the September Legco against the Adminis tration proposal to put a protective duty of If- per pound on trade tobacco coming into the Territory; but they were defeated and the duty went through.
r:E Territory uses a great deal of trade tobacco—it is a form of currency. High officialdom argues that all the tobacco needed in F-NG can be grown within P-NG —already, a couple of small manu facturing enterprises are under way. The newly trained native planters can easily grow tobacco.
So far, so good.
Naturally, persons who employ a lot of native labour are not at all pleased to learn that they now must pay at least 1/- per pound more for the tobacco by which they pay labour; while the labourers who do their own providing are going to be similarly discontented.
Employers and labourers—accord ing to Council speakers—think they are being asked to pay too high a price for a new local industry.
It is by no means a new situa tion. This is usually a matter of balanced national economics. Some one gets hurt—someone benefits.
But an argument against the plan, presented by Mr. John
Hohnen, Mr. Fairfax Ross and others, puts this particular develop ment in a different category. They pointed out that it- could do the Territory far more harm than good.
The Territory looks to Australia for a growing market for its plywood, rubber, passionfruit pulp, and so on. Some of these things are grown in Australia. If P-NG is going to impose tariffs to protect an infant industry like tobacco, why should not Australia impose tariffs to protect its own passion fruit pulping and plywood making?
Had Advantages
Mr. Hohnen, emphasising the danger, argued that P-NG tobacco processors, with their cheap labour supply, already had all the advan tage they needed to undersell imported tobacco. Why introduce a dangerous principle just to pro tect an infant industry that really did not need this kind of pro tection?
But officialdom was adamant.
The Bill went through.