No Copra Tax for Fiji
p. 12 · Read in the full issue
And No Reduction In Cotton Goods Duties
Suva, May 2.
THE Copra Tax Bill, proposing an ex port tax of £2 per ton on copra, has been abandoned. It was carried by the Legislative Council, on April 20 by 18 to 13, after a long debate.
During the debate, the Governor announced that, if the Bill was passed, Government would reduce the import duty on cotton piece goods of all kinds from 25i per cent, preferential rate and 50 per cent, general rate, to 12a per cent, preferential and 27a per cent, general.
He said that, as piece goods were the “raw materials’’ of nearly all clothing made in Fiji, all sections of the com munity would benefit. If the full effects of the reduction in the duty were passed on to the buyers of clothes, the cost of living index in the Suva area would be reduced by 3 to 4 points, and in areas outside Suva, by 5 to 6 points. The reduc tion in the yield from the import duty would be £70,000, which was equal to the revenue expected from copra tax. (On page 32 of this issue, there is an article in which the injustices of the Fiji Government’s heavy import tax on cotton goods is referred to.) "FTHE motion is carried by 18 votes to X 13,” said the Governor, at the end of the debate. “Those 13 were all unofficial Members, who had done their best to interpret the wishes of the people.
In view of that consideration, I shall not proceed with this Bill; but I have two things to say: “If and when the price of copra is substantially increased again, I have little doubt that the Government will once more come forward with proposals for a tax on copra. The fact that it has been dropped now does not mean that the Government view has weakened.
“The second point I wish to make is this: This is Government’s effort, such as it is, to combat the cost of living and in flation. Admittedly, it is a very small contribution, but it is a contribution on the right lines, and on the lines which this Colony will sooner or later be obliged to follow. There is going to be a great deal of public discontent as prices rise.
All the indications are that prices will continue to go up, and every one will feel it. Government has tried its remedy: it has been rejected. The responsibility lies with the Unofficial Members to meet it.”
Arguments for and against the Bill were keen.
Opponents stressed that the copra in dustry had not yet recovered fully from its pre-war and hurricane troubles; that it was unfair to impose another £2 per ton tax on Fijian producers, who already were to be taxed £lO per ton under the* Development Fund Bill (see April PIM); that areas which received no benefit from General Revenue funds would be heavily taxed; that it was unfair to tax one in dustry, while allowing others to go free; that, in any event, the Government had substantial funds from surplus balances over five years.
Supporting the Bill, the Colonial Sec retary said that the gold industry was taxed, the tax on sugar was revivable when conditions permitted—so why should copra escape a tax that, in any event, was very light. If the tax was found to be oppressive it could be varied.
He quoted figures to show that copra producers could well afford to pay the tax; and that, in turn, would allow the Government to tackle the problem of re ducing the cost of living.