War Risk Compensation Muddle In

Fiji

Chamber of Commerce Makes Forthright Charge of Breach of Good Faith

THERE has been much perturbation in the Colony of Fiji, and in the Territories of the Western Pacific Commission, which apparently are af fected by the same set of circumstances, concerning the new announcement by the British Colonial Office that no special provision now is to be made to cover war damage L o property suffered by the people in the Territories referred to.

This announcement came as a greater shock because it was clearly inferred, in official announcements made early this year in Suva, that compensation for war damage would be provided in some form.

The first intimation came in a Govern ment statement published in the "Fiji Times,” on August 8, that the whole posi tion had been reviewed and that the British Government undertook to provide compensation for war damage eventually, if it was found that the local resources of the territories concerned could not take care of this obligation.

On August 27, the following Govern ment notice appeared in the "Fiji Times” : "As announced in notices published in the Press on the 7th February and the 10th February, 1942, proposals for war damage legislation in Fiji have been under consideration by Government in consultation with His Majesty’s Govern ment in the United Kingdom and represen tatives of local Industry and Commerce.

"His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have recently stated their policy regarding war damage legislation throughout the Colonial Em pire, and after further consultation with local representative bodies it has been decided not to proceed with the legis lation in Fiji. The general aim of His Majestv’s Government after the war will be as stated in the notice published on the Bth August.”

Chamber Of Commerce

Indignant

THIS development naturally alarmed the Fiji business community, and on September 9 the matter was con sidered by the Suva Chamber of Com merce, with Mr. Alport Barker in the chair.

The facts were recounted, and it was reported that the Colonial Secretary, in a formal letter, said "the two notices published in the Press on the 7th and 10th February last respectively did not contain any promise of protection in the matter of war damage.”

Mr. H. E. Snell moved, and Mr. M.

Brqdie seconded, the following resolution, which was carried unanimously: ‘That a letter be written to the Colonial Secretary— “(a) Setting out verbatim (1) the notices published by Government on the 7th and 10th February last; (2) the second paragraph of the * Colonial Secretary’s letter to the Chamber of 27th August last; ‘‘(b) Asking that the Governor should suitably censure the officer of Govern ment who is the effective author of the second paragraph of the letter of 27th August for his narrow and legalistic interpretation of public announcements made by a British Government to its citizens in a time of threatened emer gency; ‘(c) Stating that these two announce ments by Government as defined by the third announcement of 16th February indubitably led the citizens of Fiji to be lieve that, subject to the kind of con dition indicated in the announcement,

compensation would be arranged by Government to induce that belief; that until the second paragraph of the letter of 27th August is corrected by Govern ment, it will be difficult for members of the Chamber to believe that announce ments are made by Government in that proper spirit of good faith which should apply between a British Government and its citizens.”

The following is from "Fiji Times and Herald” of February 7:— "Official Announcement.—We received the following announcement from His Excellency the Governor after we went to press yesterday afternoon: The Secretary of State for the Colonies, having ap proved of the formulation of a scheme of War Risk Insurance to meet local needs, a Committee with unofficial membership is actively engaged in working out such a scheme in the light of the figures just received from the insurance companies operating in this Colony. It is hoped to make a further announcement when the scheme is sufficiently advanced; in the meantime, the Secretary of State has been approached telegraphically on the principle of making such legislation re trospective to cover loss sustained by enemy action prior to the passage of the Bill.”

From "Fiji Times and Herald” of 10th February:— "War Risk Insurance—To Be Retro spective.—With reference to the an nouncement made by Government in the Press on Saturday last about war risk insurance, the Secretary of State has informed His Excellency the Governor that there is no objection to a public announcement being made to the effect that the legislation which it is proposed to pass on the subject will cover war damage caused after Ist January, 1942.

As previously stated, the whole question is now being actively considered by a Committee, and a special meeting of the Legislative Council will be summoned to consider the draft legislation when it is ready for submission to the Council ”

From "Fiji Times and Herald” of 16th February:— "Public Announcement—War Damage Insurance Legislation.—lt having come to the notice of the Committee which is considering this subject that the an nouncements already made on the ques tion of war damage insurance have been interpreted by some persons as meaning that all property owners are in effect covered against war damage, the Com mittee wish to state that in their opinion it should be made clear that war damage cover will be only in accordance with coneurrence of the Secretary of State, i ne Committee have been considering the various possible schemes, and the basis of the scheme which the Committee are now considering for recommendation to Government is the following: War dam age cover available only to those persons holding fire insurance policies, arid the war damage indemnity limited to the amount covered by the fire insurance policy on the identical interest.—E. E.

Jenkins, A. R. W. Robertson, R. Crompton, Committee ” f War Damage Ins urance

Strange Difference Between

Fiji And Australia

PRIOR to the above development, a lively controversy had taken place between the Government and Fiji commercial interests concerning certain provisions of the War Risk Insurance Bill then proposed by the Fiji Government.

The Bill made no guarantee of pay ment for damage to buildings if there were not enough premiums accumulated to meet the charge; and there was no provision for compensation for damage caused by a “scorched earth policy.”

Commercial interests were angered by both features of the Bill, and the strongest representations were made to the Govern ment, in a series of Chamber of Com merce resolutions dated August 19.

In the War Risk Insurance plan de vised in Australia for the Australian Pacific territories, the war damage definition does include damage done by the “scorched earth policy,” but does not include damage caused by looting of stores and houses after the owners had been compulsorily evacuated by the mili tary authority It is a remarkable instance of how bureaucratic minds do not always think alike.

Blooming in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens at present is an offshoot of the rhododendron brought down from the heights of Mt. Victoria, Papua, by Sir William McGregor in 1889, when he made the ascent of that mountain. Sir William presented it to von Mueller, who was then in charge of the Gardens, and who was responsible for much of its beauty. I saw the shrub a few days ago, when passing through the Gardens, but unfortunately did not notice its botanical name. The flowers are small, and of a deep red colour. —Mollie Lett.