Fiji’S Startling Reply To Australia

60 Per Cent. on Australian Flour, in Reprisal for “Submarining” of Banana Trade

A STIR was caused in Australia in October by the announcement that Fiji proposed to place a prohibitive duty on imports of Australian flour, as a reprisal against the Commonwealth for its treatment of Fijian bananas. Fiji con sumes a very large quantity of Australian flour.

Some such action by Fiji was long overdue. The whole position was stated admirably in a letter from Mr. C. B. Joske, president of the Fiji Banana Associa tion, which was published in the “Sydney Morning Herald” on November 7:

“WITH reference to the negotiations proceedings between the Australian Government and the British Government in regard to increased imports of Aus tralian meat and butter into Great Britain, it is somewhat pertinent to draw your attention to the manner in which Australia is implementing the Ottawa Agreement as between herself and Fiji.

“Under the agreement, Fijian bananas, which for some years past had been ex cluded from the Australian market by a prohibitive tariff, were given the right of entry up to 40,000 centals per annum at a reduced duty which amounted to ap proximately 2/ per case.

“This small concession aroused hostile criticism in Australia, and it was neces sary for the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to remind the Queensland Government that the concession was comparatively insignificant as compared with the Aus tralian production of about 2,300,000 bushels per annum or in other words about 2.7 per cent, of Australia’s pro

duction. The hostility continued, and the Committee of Direction of Fruit Market ing in Brisbane (a quasi-Governmental activity) endeavoured to organise a boy cott by Queensland fruit-growers of any fruit agents in Sydney or Melbourne who handled Fijian bananas for sale.

“The essence of the Ottawa Agreement was understood to be fair competition and no discrimination. When Fijian ship pers commenced to send shipments to the Australian market, it was with dismay that they found that various charges and taxes were levied on Fijian bananas which were not levied on Australian bananas. Amongst these items were pri mage, which in effect amounted to a duty of 10 per cent, of the f.o.b. value. The most glaring example, however, was a sales tax of six per cent, (subsequently reduced to five per cent.) on the whole sale selling price—a tax levied on Fijian bananas, but not on Australian bananas.

There were other items such as Federal and State income taxes, unemployment relief tax and finally quarantine inspection

fee of 4d per case as opposed to 1d per case upon Australian bananas. These additional charges rendered it unprofit able for Fiji shippers to send bananas to Australia, and consequently the Ottawa concession is valueless to Fiji.

“In order to obtain this concession Fiji had to jettison a preferential trade agree ment which existed with Canada and New Zealand, and this resulted in an ac tual loss to the Fiji Customs Revenue. In 1933 Australia bought from Fiji £43,000, but Fiji bought from Australia £380,000.

“It is no wonder that Fiji considers Australia is not playing the game in re gard to the treatment extended to the tiny quantity of Fiji bananas permitted to be imported into Australia under the Ottawa Agreement.

“This feeling is exemplified by a mo tion introduced into the Fiji Legislative Council in October 19 by Hon. J. B. Bayly, European Elected Member, that in view of the discriminatory treatment thus ex tended by Australia, the Customs duties on all Australian goods imported into Fiji should be increased by a primage tax of 30 per cent., a sales tax of 20 per cent., and a special income tax of 10 per cent., totalling an additional 60 per cent, in all.

This increase is to remain operative so long as similar taxation remains opera tive in Australia. Such duties would ef fectually transfer to Canada and New Zealand the trade with Fiji at present en joyed by Australia.

“It was significant that the motion was seconded by Hon. Ratu J. L. V. Sukuna, Fijian Member nominated by the Great Council of Chiefs, and supported by the Senior Elected European Member, Sir Maynard Hedstrom, the Indian elected member, Mr. K. B. Singh, and all other European, Fijian, and Indian unofficial members. The Official side were unable

to speak on the motion, which, of course, could not be accepted by the Governor, but it was evident in what direction their sympathies lay.

“Under the Deed of Cession in 1874 the Fijians gave Fiji to the British Crown to hold as their trustee. It is the Fijians themselves who grow the bananas which might be exported to Australia, and we in Fiji hope that the British Government will not be unmindful of the position dur ing the present negotiations with Aus tralia.”

Editorial Note

Urgent representations have been made to the Commonwealth Government by flour-milling and other interests; but the Government has been so busy arranging a coalition with the Country Party that it has not replied.

It is understood, however, that Dr.

Page, leader of the Country Party, will be Minister for Commerce, and will deal with this Fiji matter; and a piquant situation thereby is created.

The Country Party is eager to establish a policy of trade reciprocity, so as to protect all external markets for Aus tralian primary products. The Fiji mar ket for Australian flour is valuable, and Dr. Page must do his best to hold it.

The opposition to Fiji bananas comes from Queensland and Northern New South Wales; and it was the underground in fluence of primary producers there which “submarined” the Fiji banana agreement in the manner described by Mr. Joske.

The banana-growers of Australia are, for the most part, supporters of the Country Party in politics.

The new Minister for Commerce must either run counter to the wishes of an important section of his supporters, and let in the pre-arranged quota of Fiji

bananas; or he must let the barrier against Fiji bananas remain, and sacri fice the interests of the wheatgrowers and millers to the interests of the banana-producers.