Up Front

with the Editor

A paragraph buried in our report of the Fiji Legislative Council budget session (p. 29) deserves more prominence than it has so far got in Fiji or Australia, and that’s been about nil.

IHE paragraph refers to Australia’s gift to Fiji of flour and sharps livalent to 14,000 metric tons of eat, announced by the Australian nister for External Affairs, Mr. j 1 Hasluck, on November 21. Ad ;tedly a dull item of news, hardly rthy of comment, and there has fact been some collusion to keep hat way. fhe significance begins to show if i study the official announcements. . Hasluck, for instance, said the formed part of Australia’s com ment under the International fins Agreement to supply develop countries with 225,000 metric s of wheat or flour as food aid 1968-9, and he added, mysteri ly, “It has been necessary to make nal arrangements, in consultation i the Fiji Government, to avoid rference with the supply of flour sharps from Australia to Fiji >ugh normal commercial channels.” he official Fiji Government an ncement accepting “this generous acknowledges the co-operation :he Australian Wheat Board and millers’ organisation so that Fiji obtain “the maximum possible "fit from this gift”, and adds, e mysteriously, “The money made lable by the gift will be of con rable assistance to the Fiji Gov aent in meeting the cost of its :lopment plan and represents a ible contribution to Fiji’s present Is in this sphere.” ow, one asks, does the gift of 00 tons of wheat help Fiji’s de pment plan? Fiji does not require more wheat than it is already ng from Australia, and we have been told that the normal corn ual trade is not being interfered ic explanation is that here is an national fiddle. Fiji is not getting 00 tons of wheat. It is getting s hot little hand the equivalent

in cash—sA6BB,6so or £F338,000 and it will put it direct into kitty to spend on its development plan.

From what I can discover, the Commonwealth will pay the cash to the Wheat Board, which will pay it to Fiji so that Fiji can ostensibly buy the flour “without interfering with regular commercial arrange ments.” The machinations of the fiddle are not likely to be officially admitted either by Australia or Fiji.

It’s a fiddle whose aim I heartily endorse, although it is a peculiar commentary on the methods of Aus tralian politics which make it neces sary for the country to do good by stealth.

When, last year, Australia rejected Fiji’s request for a loan of £F3.65 million for her development plan on the ground that Australia never gave govemment-to-government loans, Australia got plenty of publicity of the wrong kind. When, later, Aus tralia tried to help out by allowing Fiji to raise private loan monies in Australia, the Commonwealth itself insisted that there should be no publicity because Fiji was getting a special favour not available to any body else.

The latest bending of the regula tions must have seemed a pretty good farewell to Fiji’s representative in Australia, Bob Major, who left Syd ney on long leave in late November and probably won’t be back for 12 months. He’s worked hard in Can berra to put Fiji’s viewpoint at every opportunity, and he’s respected and liked there.

In Suva there have been repeated attacks on Fiji’s maintenance of an Australian representative by those whose horizons stretch no farther than the Defence Club bar. This first gift of 1688,650, which Major’s work helped get, should pay for his upkeep, with something to spare.

WHILE on this matter of narrow Fiji horizons. The resolution put forward at Fiji’s eighth annual tourist convention, proposing that the in ternational Press be censured for giv ing alarmist versions of Fiji’s recent political problems thereby possibly discouraging tourism, shows how some people can live in a dream world. The motion was defeated fol lowing the public expression of some well-chosen words by Russ Gribble, the Fiji Visitors Bureau man in Syd ney, who doesn’t suffer from a lack of perspective.

Fiji’s tourist plant operators occasionally display these Alice in Wonderland symptoms. Last April PIM published a report on Fiji’s hotel occupancy figures, and said some people felt there was a warning in them that hotels were being built too fast and that there would be too many empty rooms until the demand caught up with the supply.

Our report brought us a stinker or two from Fiji, and some scorn from one or two travel industry papers.

Fiji tourism would continue to flourish, we were told. Well, we hoped so then and we hope so now, but last month a NZ travel expert gave Fiji a report which said what PIM had said six months earlier.

As you can see from the story on p. 53 of this issue, some people don’t agree with him, either, and the picture is probably no clearer now than it was in April. Except for one thing; Obviously trends should be in vestigated fully, no matter how un comfortable they may appear to be, and shouting at them won’t send them away.

THERE is a revealing paragraph to be found in the full text of the submissions made by the Rabi Islanders in their recent approach to London (for that story, see p. 34).

The paragraph gives the cost to Australia and her phosphate partners

of Nauruan independence, and the figures were prepared by the Sydney economic consultants, Philip Shrapnel and Co., who proved themselves adept at figuring during their work for the Nauruans.

They say, ‘The partner govern ments agreed to increase the f.o.b. price of Nauru phosphate from 5A6.65 per ton in 1966-7 to SAII per ton in 1967-8 and a further in crease in the basic price to SAI2 per ton is likely in 1969-70. This means that the value of Nauruan phosphate should rise from $AlO.Bm. in 1966-7 to |A22m in 1967-8. The bulk of this increased cost of $A 11.2 m will be paid by Australia and NZ, who in 1966-7 accounted for respectively 68 per cent, and 25.5 per cent, of phosphate exports from Nauru.

“On this basis the increased cost to Australia will be £A7.6m per annum, to NZ $2.9m. per annum and to the UK, so.7m. per annum.

The cost of Nauru’s independence will, of course, rise further when the basic price rises from SAII per ton to SAI2 per ton.”

So now we know.

That London conference also in cluded some pertinent information for the Melanesian breakaway move ments in New Guinea. I refer to Lord Shepherd’s comments on the principles which Britain follows when asked to divide dependent territories.

He said: “We cannot dwell on past history; we must concentrate on the problems of the present. On these grounds we are bound to take the view that whatever motives may have influ enced the determination of boundaries of dependent territories in the past do not of themselves affect the question whether those boundaries should be preserved until the time comes for such territories to assume full responsibility for their affairs.

“There have been many cases in which colonial boundaries have been maintained in face of claims that they should be varied and this general policy has been widely supported among the emerging nations them selves. Certainly the majority of member states of the United Nations have attached great importance to the principle of territorial integrity.

“In this context I must also remind you of a cardinal principle to which Britain has adhered closely in the past in dealing with her dependent territories, and to which we continue to adhere —that the wishes of the people of the territory must be the main guide to action. There are cases where adherence to this principle has led to difficulties for Britain. But the

fact remains that we must be guide by the wishes of the people as whole within the existing boundarii of the territories.”

So says Lord Shepherd. It seen eminently reasonable that the Au tralian Government should si exactly that to the Melanesh secessionists. Such a stand no doesn’t preclude some other arrang ment later—when the territory has better idea of where it is headed.

There are numbers of solutior I notice that one first expressed 1 lan Downs has been taken up i creasingly in recent weeks—that : that New Guinea might well deveh a system of states or provinces, wi a fair measure of local autonom The Tolais, Sepiks and Bougai villians can thus have their cake ai eat it, too.

There isn’t any doubt that the Ne Guinea islands have been bad neglected by Port Moresby over tl years, and thus these “independent moves are to be expected. Paradoxi ally, they may very well help more quickly move the territo towards unity.

THE crown of thorns starfis which kills reef coral, is to studied to see if its explosive increa can be controlled, a meeting decid in Guam in November. I offer tl solution, pinched from Rob Wrigh popular fishing column in The F Times: “It may be of interest to scienti: studying methods of eliminating t crown of thorns invasion of A\ tralia’s Great Barrier Reef to knc that two little boys in Fiji have d covered a very simple, cheap a: efficient method of killing the pests.

“The momentous discovery w made by a family picnicking at Mai vatucou. During a spell in the tit three of these giant starfish were d covered and hauled out on the bea for examination.

“Boys will be boys, and these t\ youngsters showed their contempt f one of these creatures by treating in a manner which would hardly approved of at Sunday school. Th urinated on it.

“But what really caused a sho was the fact that an hour later wh the boys wandered over to have final look at the creatures, t “treated” one had expired while t other two were still full of life.

“How further use of this discove can be made will need long a careful consideration.”

Stuart Ind[?]