Crossed Fiji
pp. 20-22 · Read in the full issue
How Australia Double- Crossed Fiji A Minister and a Banana Quota
THE following is from the “Sydney Morning Herald” of May 21:— “ ‘lt is extraordinary, at a time when Australia is experiencing the utmost difficulty in disposing of her fruit over seas, owing to tne loss of export markets, that a fresh effort should be made to secure the entry of Fiji bananas to Aus tralia free of duty.’
“This statement was made by the Assis tant Minister for Commerce, Mr. H. L.
Anthony, at Murwillumbah. He was re ferring to a strong approach recently made by powerful interests representing Fiji to the Commonwealth Government.
“Under the terms of the original Ottawa agreement, Fiji was given the right to export to Australia 40,000 centals of bananas a year under a duty of 2/6 a cental, as against the former duty of 8/- a cental. The new proposal was that the 2/6 duty bo abolished and that 40,000 centals of Fiji bananas be admitted free of all duty. The Commonwealth Govern ment did not agree to the proposal.
“Mr. Anthony said that if there had ever been a time when such a proposal could be entertained, that time certainly was not now.”
“Pim” Comment
THE foregoing is a good example of a politician posing as a statesman, and appealing to the most selfish party interests.
What Mr. Anthony carefully concealed is the fact that Australia for years, has deliberately and cunningly “double crossed” Fiji. For a long time, Fiji bought from Australia very much more than Australia ever bought from Fiji. Fiji’s protests were blandly ignored by Aus tralia. There was no reason why Fiji should continue the system other British countries (especially New Z-ealand and Canada) were prepared to sell Fiji all the goods (mostly foodstuffs) which Fiji got from Australia, and buy an equivalent quantity of Fiji’s products.
Finally, the then Governor (Sir Mur chison Fletcher) issued an ultimatum Either Australia would buy Fiji bananas, or a duty would go onto Australian flour and similar commodities.
Australian banana-growers howled; but so did the Australian flour-millers—and, harassed by both interests, Australian Ministers finally compromised by agree ing to admit 40,000 centals of Fiji bananas per annum, and thus retained the valuable Fiji market for Australian products.
But Australia never has played the game. As has been pointed out in this journal at intervals during the past five years, all sorts of dirty little tricks have been employed to keep Fiji bananas out of Australia, and the understanding that Australia would buy Fiji bananas, in re turn for the continuance of her flour trade, never was honoured.
If the Fiji Government now should decide to put a tax upon Australian flour and other commodities, Australian ex porters can thank Mr. Anthony and similar broad-visioned thinkers, for the loss of an old and valuable market.
Mr. Anthony should ask himself: Which is more important to-day—the main tenance of Australia’s export trade, or the goodwill of his few banana-growing constituents?
Mr. Andrew Deoki, a Fiji-born Indian, returned to Suva in mid-May from New Zealand after qualifying himself for the legal profession. He spent seven years in New Zealand, studying at Auckland University College.
A daughter was bom on May 9 to Mr. and Mrs. lan Maclean, of Rabaul, New Guinea.