Critics Of South

Pacific Comm

Handicap of Noumea Situation

From Our Own Correspondent SUVA, April 23.

Criticising the south Pacific Commission at a meeting of the Fiji Society, Mr. Harold Gatty expressed the opinion that much of fie Commission’s work could be lone better by individual terri tories.

He said that the Commission’s leadquarters at Noumea were ‘isolated” and, citing the project :or the introduction and distribu tion of economic plants in opera tion at Naduruloulou, suggested that ;uch important work should be lone by the Government of Fiji in iependently of “grants-in-aid from in outside organisation.”

In the past there have been dickers of criticism of the South Pacific Commission in Fiji—judg ng by some of the ill-informed comments it might be thought that fie whole concern was financed by fie local taxpayers—but Mr. Gatty’s jroadside was the first to be made lublicly for a considerable time.

At all events, the Commission is lot without its defenders. i/|R. R. A. DERRICK, curator of ITI the Fiji Museum, referred to the international basis of the Commission, and to the varying evels of development and resources vhich exist in the South Pacific erritories. The Commission, he >aid, served a useful purpose by :ollecting and circulating informa ion and financing research projects vhere needed.

With reference to Mr. Gatty’s )lea for expanded plant introduc ion work, Mr. Derrick said that a Kew Gardens in the Pacific” was mpracticable. Regional research, uch as research on the rhinoceros )eetle, was the kind of problem yhich was most suitable for action >y the Commission.

“The Commission does not con rol the plant introduction project n Fiji,” said the Fiji Society’s pre ident (Mr. B. E. V. Parham). “It las, however, made substantial ;rants-in-aid so that more rapid irogress can be made and the re ults shared more fully by other erritories.”

Mr. Parham said that since the aain function of the Commission /as to stimulate active interest in conomic, health and social develop aent, more or less uniformly hroughout the South Pacific, and ince there was evidence that its afluence had brought about useful dvancss, it might be argued that he progress made in the six years f the Commission’s existence was onsistent with that of any similar aternational organisation.

WITH the Fiji Society’s discussion in mind, it may be recalled that at one time there was a good chance that the Commission’s headquarters would be established at Suva, which has obvious geographical and communications advantages over Noumea. But in the early stages there was strong opposition outside official circles at Suva, based presumably on an unfounded fear that the Commission might start interfering in administrative matters in Fiji.

This more or less unfortunate attitude has since been countered by the fact that the Commission has all but fallen over backwards in its determination not to interfere in anybody’s affairs or to step

on anybody’s toes. (It is possible that the Commission would have more spectacular achievements in its record if it had not been so very punctilious on this point).

Except at the time of the first South Pacific Conference at Suva in 1950, the Commission’s public relations and news services have not been very effective, and this weakness probably accounts for some of the wrong ideas that still persist regarding its work, A few opponents and sceptics, of course, may be found among those who seem to dislike the idea of improved economic and social standards for the indigenous Islanders. Even in Fiji there are people who still think that a per

petual cheap-labour economy is not only feasible but something to be desired.