Australia’S Mad-Headed Fiscal Policy

Extraordinary Story of Fiji Bananas

THE deplorable history of trade relations between Fiji and Australia, and the more recent chapter of thgt history which is concerned tenth Fiji bana nas, are cogently dealt with in an article by Mr. C. B. Joske, of Suva, presi dent of the Fiji Bananas-growers 1 Associa tion, which was published in the “Sydney Morning Herald 11 on January 30. The shameful story needs no comment.

It is not too much to say that the Aus tralian fiscal policy seems to be under the control of lunatics. The Australian manu facturing industries are riddled with un employment, yet Australia, by the mad headed use of tariffs, and an inability to see that trade must be reciprocal, is hav ing the doors to market after market slammed in her face. Fiji is only one of half a dozen instances which have been quoted in Australian newspapers in recent weeks.

Mr. Joske's letter follows: — IN recent issues of your journal I note references to the action taken by cer tain countries by way of retaliation for the imposition of prohibitive tariffs on their products by Australia, e.g., Belgium (sheet glass v. meat) and China (peanuts v. flour). Even little Fiji, whose white popu lation is largely Australian, is contemplat ing the same type of action in defence of the right of entry of her bananas to the Australian market.

These are the facts. The Ottawa Agree ment gave Fiji the right to send 40,000 centals of bananas to Sydney and Mel bourne at a duty of 2/6 per cental (one case contains about 80lb.). This represented a share of about 3 per cent, of the total Australian consumption of bananas.

The essence of Ottawa was fair com petition and no discrimination—in other words, Fiji bananas were to compete on equal terms with Australian, once the tariff barrier was passed. Instead, we find that the banana concession has been emasculated by the levying of taxes on Fijian bananas which are not levied on Australian bananas. In addition, certain Queensland interests have done their best to prevent the fruit agents from handling Fiji bananas by withholding from such agents supplies of Queensland fruits.

A pretty commentary on the good faith of Australia, and one which will be noted with interest by those British agriculturists who are at this moment being asked to sacrifice themselves “in the spirit of Ottawa” to help Australian meat, butter, etc.! It is worth remembering that re strictions on the importation of meat into the United Kingdom may be imposed after June, 1934.

The taxes which have been levied speci ally on Fiji bananas are as follow; — Primage: 10 per cent, of the net value of our bananas f.o.b. Suva.

Sales Tax: 5 per cent, of the gross selling price.

Special Income Tax: 10d in the £ of the gross selling price.

Quarantine inspection: 4d per case.

The import duty agreed at Ottawa is equivalent to 2/ per case; the taxes listed above —imposed on Fiji bananas and not on Australian bananas —approximate to another 3/6 per case. Is that fair Ottawa competition? Rather too “body-line,” I suggest.

In order to bring this ingenuous treat ment before the notice of the people of Australia I have suggested to the Govern ment of Fiji that some drastic action must be taken to diminish Australia’s share of Fiji trade. In 1933 Australia bought from Fiji £43,000, but Fiji bought from Australia £380,000. Details of 1933 are not yet avail able, but in 1932 the imports from Australia included: —Beer £6200, cordage and rope £4215, confectionery £2894, drugs £6366, flour and flour by-products £53,229, milk £2615, tea £8977, cigarettes £18,690, a total of £103,186. In all the above items Aus tralia has keen competitors in New Zealand, Canada, and England.

The quality of the manufactures from these countries is at least as good as those from Australia —there is no great differ ence in prices. Even a Queenslander would agree there is no great hardship involved in drinking New Zealand beer, smoking an English cigarette, or eating a Canadian loaf.

The obvious line of action for Fiji is, therefore, to select such items as Australian beer, cigarettes and flour for special taxa tion to such an extent that these products of Australian manufacture will be replaced by the manufactures of New Zealand, Canada, or the United Kingdom—and to continue such special taxation until we get an Ottawa deal from Australia.

May I —brought up and educated in Aus tralia, with Australian interests and con nections —warn those Australians con cerned in the Fiji market that such action is under very serious consideration in Fiji?