. . . and Fiji’s Ratu

Mara takes time out to disagree

Fiji’s Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara in a 3000-word article published in The Fiji Times in May mounted a spirited defence of his government’s refusal to surrender $850 000 in bilateral Australian aid funds to help keep the Pacific Forum Line afloat.

Extracts from his article are published here.

So much has been said recently about Fiji’s attitude towards the

Pacific Forum Line. It almost seems that it is a deliberate and concerted attempt to coerce Fiji to adopt a position which in the view of the government is clearly not in our national interest. It is quite obvious, for instance, that The Fiji Times, in its editorial comment of April 20, has been persuaded by recent public comment by the New Zealand Prime Minister and by the Chairman of the Pacific Forum Line, Mr Harry Julian, who is also the New Zealand Government represen-

tative on the PFL board of directors.

The thrust of the New Zea land Government’s argument and that of the chairman of the PFL board of directors is that the beneficiaries of the PFL are its Pacific island members; therefore, all Island countries, including Fiji, should be pre pared to subsidise its operations through direct cash contri butions even to the extent of diverting to the PFL overseas bilateral aid funds which they have already committed to national development pro grammes.

Yet they have conveniently chosen to remain silent on two very important points.

These are, firstly, that it is

New Zealand which is the main beneficiary of the PFL oper ations, and, secondly, that what Fiji and other Island countries are, in effect, being told to do is to subsidise New Zealand’s exports to the Pacific Islands, for most of the cargoes carried by PFL originate in NZ.

It is simply not true to say that all Pacific Island members are benefiting from PFL oper ations. In fact, the very countries that are in greatest need of assistance by the pro vision of regular shipping ser vices countries such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands are not being serviced by the PFL, and the PFL management has made it clear on several occasions that there are no immediate plans to introduce services to these countries.

It is precisely for this reason that Australia has not been willing to offer further direct cash contributions to the PFL other than through regular bi lateral aid funds it has already committed to individual Pacific Island countries.

In a recent press statement {Fiji Times, April 22), the chairman of PFL reportedly said that PFL was already making a moderate profit on the

NZ-Fiji-Western Samoa-Tonga

run and was poised to break even on its Australia-Fiji- Western Samoa-Tonga service

but that it was on the NZ-Papua New Guinea run that the PFL was continuing to incur losses.

Figures provided by the PFL management showed that ac cumulated losses on the NZ PNG run to December 31, 1980, amount to SUS4.S million, and that in 1980 no less than 54% of total cargo carried by PFL in all its operations was uplifted from NZ with only 0.7% from PNG.

So, clearly, what Fiji and other Island countries are being told to do is to subsidise PFL’s losses on its NZ-PNG run; in other words, to subsidise NZ’s exports to PNG.

The specific sum Fiji is being asked to divert to PFL is SABSO 000 in bilateral aid funds which Australia had allo cated to Fiji in 1980 for the years 1982-83, and which the government of Fiji has already committed to various national projects such as roads, jetties and airstrips, and a variety of

income-generating activities

The government of Fiji could never agree, and has never

agreed, to such a proposition. It is not the function or the responsibility of the people of Fiji to promote by subsidy the export trade of another nation From the outset of the PFL, the government of Fiji had made it clear to both the shipping and non-shipping members of the PFL that as a

non-ship-contributing member,

Fiji’s direct financial partici pation in the PFL would be limited to the $lO 000 shareholding requirement under the PFL’s Memorandum of Association.

At the special meeting of the South Pacific Forum convened in New Delhi last September, I again reminded everyone that Fiji had paid its subscription of $lO 000 and that Fiji did not intend to make any further contribution.

Both the NZ Prime Minister and the chairman of the PFL have referred to the so-called New Delhi consensus.

If there was a consensus at New Delhi, it was specifically that the PFL should be allowed

Above: One of the industries established under the New Zealand Pacific Islands Development Scheme is the Omega Company of Niue which ex ports rugby footballs to France. Below: At home New Zealand in dustries continue to provide employment for large numbers of Islanders.

to continue in operation if the necessary finance could be found to alleviate its financial difficulties.

But there was never any unanimous agreement among the Pacific Island countries that they would all divert bilateral aid already allocated to them by Australia towards the PFL . . .

The Fiji Times also referred to a suggestion by Fiji that the PFL should try to secure the contract to ship the 60 000 tons of sugar that Fiji sells annually to NZ.

The point is not that there is no cost to Fiji in the shipment of its sugar to NZ. Nor is it that the PFL does not have the type of ship suitable for the carriage of sugar.

Fiji made this suggestion because it had been quite clear from reports from the PFL management that a major con tributing factor to the PFL’s financial difficulties was the inadequacy of cargo loadings on the return-services to NZ and Australia from the Pacific Island countries.

The 60 000 tons of sugar Fiji sells annually to NZ is worth not less than $2 million in shipping contracts each year. If the PFL could secure these contracts, it could very well be the lifeline that it badly needs.

What is really unclear is whether the NZ trade unions will allow it and whether the NZ Government is committed enough to this idea to persuade the NZ buyer of Fiji sugar into giving the shipping contract to the PFL . . .

At the meeting of senior officials from Forum member countries held in February at the Suva headquarters of the South Pacific Bureau for Econ omic Co-operation (SPEC) to try to find a solution to the financial problems of the PFL, Fiji informed the other Forum countries that it would be ready and willing to take part in a further review of the financial situation of the PFL if the following information could be furnished: (a) proposals which would convince all that the PFL oper

ations on the major or trunk routes would be commercially viable; (b) proposals for reg ular services on the develop ment routes, i.e., to Pacfic Island countries not at present serviced by the PFL, together with cost implications; (c) proposals to deal with the problem of the lack or inad equacy of cargo loadings on the return services to the major ports; and (d) an analysis of the benefits to each participating

country of the PFL operations.

This information is yet to be made available, and it may be hoped that the study on the PFL being undertaken by a team from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation will provide it.

The position Fiji has taken on the PFL is neither unreasonable nor is it inconsistent with Fiji’s support for practical regional co-operation that is mutually beneficial to all ...