New Caledonian
p. 12 · Read in the full issue
Rice
France’s Retaliation
Ministers’ Fatuous
Statements
AS an indication of the apparent hopelessness of persuading the Federal Government to take any sort of intelligent interest in Austral ian trade with the Pacific Islands, we quote the following from Federal Hansard of November 7: Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL. —Having regard to the fact that the French authorities in New Caledonia have imposed an import duty of £4 a ton on Australian rice, in retaliation for the Commonwealth tariff policy, does the Minister for Markets propose to make representations to the French Government with a view to its removal?
Mr. PARKER MOLONEY.—The allegation of the honourable member is similar to the statement recently made that Japan was adopting a certain attitude towards Australian wool because of the tariff polipy of the Commonwealth. When such statements are investigated they are found to be without foundation. I have no evidence that the New Caledonian tax on Australian rice is a re taliatory measure.
Mr. LATHAM.—I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs (1) has a duty of £4 a ton been im posed in New Caledonia on Australian rice; (2) has the Minister any information regarding the reason for the imposition of the apparently dis criminatory duty; (3) if so, what is the informa tion, and from what source was it obtained?
Mr. FORDE. —I read in the newspapers the state ment that such a tax had been imposed in New Caledonia, but there is no evidence that it is retaliatory. Communications I have received in dicate that the people of New Caledonia, and the French people generally, entertain the utmost good feeling towards Australia. We want to en courage that sentiment in every possible way.
The statements of the two Ministers would be funny if they were not so feeble. There is as much resemblance between Australian wool in relation to Japan, and Australian rice in rela tion to New Caledonia, as there is between sunshine and moonshine.
Australia completely dominates the merino wool market, and Japan must buy there. But Australian rice is the product of a new industry, which meets merciless competition from a dozen cheap labour countries. Yet, if the industry is going to be of any use to Australia, it must find a mar ket outside the Commonwealth —the home demand is comparatively small.
The market lies at Australia’s very doors: almost all the Pacific Territor ies import large quantities of rice.
Enterprising Australian merchants quickly found a good market in New Caledonia; and the French, who are still smarting under certain aspects of Australia’s amazing tariff, just as quickly closed the open door. There is no duty in New Caledonia against rice generally—only against Austral ian rice.
The facts are well-known and the explanation quite simple. The situa tion is almost an exact counterpart of that which recently developed in Fiji. Australia, in framing her tariffs, has treated the produce of Fiji as if it were the produce of Paraguay or Hayti, or some place equally remote and unfriendly. Fiji, with proper re sentment, has imposed an equally nasty tariff against Australian pro ducts, and Australia is likely, in con sequence, to lose trade worth anything up to a quarter of a million annually.
But has anything been done about it? Not a solitary thing! It is proof ably news to the Federal Ministers that Fiji has erected a retaliatory tariff against them. The fatuousness of their replies to questions about New Caledonia is typical of their hopeless tariff policy and their appal ling lack of knowledge of the simple fundamentals of international trade.
The Scullin Government, however, is not more guilty than its predeces sors, in regard to Pacific Islands trade. The Bruce-Page administration displayed an equal ignorance and a similar deadly indifference concerning Australia’s lost opportunities in the Pacific. Trade worth hundreds of thousands of pounds annually was literally driven away to Britain, Amer ica, France and New Zealand —and the Federal Ministers did not even turn over in their sleep!