Banana-Growers’ Howls Of Agony.

Australia’s Beggarly Concession To Fiji Nearly Causes Political Crisis.

TIME announcement that, under the terms of the Ottawa Agreement, Australia would admit 40,000 centals per annum of Fiji bananas, at a rate reduced from 8/6 to 2/6 per cental, was made in our last issue.

We said that while the concession was very acceptable to Fiji, it repre sented nothing to get excited about.

Forty thousand centals per annum is a mere drop in the ocean of Australian banana consumption. In return, Fiji gave Australia the benefit of the British instead of the general tariff —a very substantial concession for Australian exporters.

No sooner was the announcement made than a most dreadful hullabaloo commenced among the banana-growers of Queensland and New South Wales.

They literally shrieked in agony at the mere suggestion that their market should be invaded by 40,000 centals (per annum) of Fijian bananas; and they bombarded their Parliamentary repre sentatives with telegrams, letters and deputations. They held huge meetings of protest: the Queensland Parliament passed on October 14 a special resolu tion damning this part of the Ottawa Agreement; and the politicians repre senting the banana constituencies bad gered the Federal Government with questions and entreaties.

The thing, literally, became a shriek ing farce. The newspapers, displaying characteristic readiness to sacrifice truth and calmness for a twopenny sensation, published matter which conveyed the impression that Aus tralia’s doors were being opened to a flood of rubbishy, coolie-grown ban anas from Fiji.

On October 20, the editor of "The Pacific Islands Monthly" sent the fol lowing letter to ‘‘The Sydney Morning Herald” and “The Sun”: Sir, —Is it not time that someone pointed out, in connection with the banana controversy, that a ridiculous fuss is being made about almost nothing at all?

Under the Ottawa agreements, Australia has undertaken to admit, to the Sydney and Mel bourne markets, a limited quantity of Fijian grown bananas. For ten years Australia has imposed on Fiji bananas a duty of 8/6 per cental (roughly, 1d. per lb.) and this has killed the Fiji banana trade, so far as Australia is concerned. Also, it has partially ruined Aus tralia’s trade with Fiji, under which that Crown Colony once purchased annually three-quarters of a million pounds’ worth of Australian pro ducts. Australia has now consented to allow about 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas to enter Australia each year (4,100 cases per month) at the reduced duty of 2/6 per cental.

In New South Wales there are 7,500 acres under bananas, which produce from 600,000 to 650,000 cases per annum. In Queensland, there were in 1929 (Year Book figures) 19,750 acres under bananas. producing 2,448,870 bushels (about 1,630,000 cases) per annum. Australia, therefore, is producing annually at least 2,000,000 cases of bananas. What possible effect on the Australian market can there be when a mere 50,000 cases per annum come in from Fiji?

And have the calamity-howlers overlooked the fact that Fiji bananas will still carry a duty of over 1/- per case? Even if the Fijian quota were 500,000 cases per annum, instead of a beggarly 50,000, there would be little to make a fuss about.

In 1981, when Australia seemed determined to maintain her banana duty, the Government of Fiji retaliated through its Customs tariff

Australia, which hitherto had enjoyed the Brit ish preferential duty, was removed to the gen eral list, and Australian exporters since then have been under a five to ten per cent, handicap in the Fiji market, as compared with British and New Zealand exporters. It has now been arranged that, on condition that Australia re duces the duty on 50,000 cases of Fiji bananas per annum, Fiji will restore Australia to the British preferences in her Customs tariff.

The fact is. therefore, that Australia, in order to try and get back Fijian trade worth £750,000 per annum, is willing to admit, at a reduced duty, 50,000 cases of Fiji bananas to a market that normally consumes at least 2,000,000 cases. Yet, at the very suggestion, and with out waiting to examine the facts, the pam pered and protected banana-growers of New South Wales and Queensland create a disturb ance in three Parliaments. Truly, a country which indulges in an orgy of protection, as Australia has done, seems to develop a kind of madness. This banana-growing section of the primary producers has proved itself guilty of the very things, concerning which the primary producers generally have been hurling accusations at the Australian manufacturers.

I am etc.,

R. W. Robson.

This letter was not published by either of the newspapers. The banana growers’ clamour continued, and then the Prime Minister made the following considered statement: I have already pointed out that only an in finitesimal proportion of Australia’s consumption of bananas will be affected by the arrangement for the introduction of bananas from Fiji.

Australia cannot hope to open up new mar kets for her primary products without making some slight concession in return. The concession in relation to Fiji bananas is small, but efforts are be ing made by certain interests to show that real injury has been done, particularly to a Queens land industry. Australia has granted this small concession in order to obtain other concessions for herself.

Under the Ottawa agreement Great Britain regards as concessions to herself, concessions given to her colonies by the dominions, and, therefore, in granting concessions to the colo nies, Australia made it possible for Britain to grant her concessions in regard to primary pro ducts. Australia is the largest exporter to

Fiji, and, although at present we do not enjoy the lowest possible tariff in our trade with Fiji, under the reciprocal arrangement we shall do so. That is a valuable concession.

Failure to ratify this agreement would re sult in the loss of the partial preferences we already enjoy—a loss which would be disas trous to our trade. Either we must have an agreement, or we must lose what we already have. Australia will gain by the agreement; but, obviously, the agreement is not entirely one-sided. To gain something, we must be pre pared to give something in return.

It is true that this small concession affects Queensland and part of New South Wales; but, on the other hand, the value of the preference to Queensland granted by Great Britain in re gard to sugar alone is estimated at about £1,000,000 per annum. In regard to butter, of which Queensland is our chief exporting State, the concession will amount to about £400,000 per annum, and that State will gain about £30,000 per annum from the concessions with respect to cheese. Moreover, the restrictions on the importation of meat into Great Britain will mean much to Queensland. It is not possible at this stage to estimatet with any degree of accuracy the extent of that benefit, but hon orable members would do well to compare the concession in respect of meat alone with the slight concession granted by Australia in the case of bananas. Other Queensland products which will benefit substantially under the agreement are canned fruits, eggs, leather and tallow. Of all the States, Queensland will gain most from the concessions granted by the Mother Country.

Since we shall lose the hold on the Fijian trade which we now enjoy if no agreement is made, it is well that honorable members should know that in 1931 Australia exported to Fiji goods valued at £372,000, whereas our imports from Fiji for that year were valued at only £34,000. For whatever concessions Queensland will make under the agreement, she will be amply compensated.

The row continued. At one time, it looked as if a combination of Country Party and Labour Party would defeat

the Government on this issue. But that danger passed.

The Prime Minister announced that he had sent a long telegram to the Queensland Government, in which the following occurred: There is no embargo on the importation of bananas except such as is created by an ex tremely high duty. By no stretch of imagina tion can the concession sacrifice Queensland in dustry, as importation is limited to forty thousand centals per annum. This is compara tively insignificant as compared with an Aus tralian production of about two million three hundred thousand bushels per annum, and amounts to about two point seven per cent, of Australian production, while concession will bring material advantages to Australian trade.

One who does not know Australia might have thought that those answers and explanations would have silenced all criticism. Not at all! At the moment of this writing, the Australian banana growers are still “bawling their silly heads off,” and completely ignoring all explanations and appeals to their com monsense. And the politicians, whose vision never reaches beyond the region of votes, are still senselessly hammer ing at the Government, trying to force it to dishonour the Ottawa Agreement because of a beggarly 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas.