ORANGE V. POTATO.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 243, 13 October 1936, Page 14

ORANGE V. POTATO.

| THOSE EMBARGOES.

! AUSTRALIAN VIEWPOINTS.

J ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT.

| The opinion that the Australia ' Federal and State Governments sliou 1 endeavour to get New Zealand to bi | Australian citrus fruits by buying Nc l-1 Zeala'nd produce, such as fish ai 's ! timber, instead of importing it fro — | other countries was expressed during ,o ( debate in the Federal House of Repr n | sentatives at Canberra. le | During the debate on the Oranj r " | Bounty Bill, Mr. J. Lawson (Goveri j ment) suggested that the Labour pari e should stand with a group of tl y I United Australia party in an endeavoi y j to get justice for the citrus growers i Australia, by having the .New Zealai embargo on Australian citrus lifted, i- Mr. Lane (Government) said that M s La wson had made a most extra ordinal " suggestion, which would almost rnea s | the defeat of the Government. E li; thought the Government should call f party meeting immediately to discus rl the matter. The Government certainl had something to explain to th country. Sir Frederick Stewart (Government 1 said lie hoped that the Governmen '• j would continue the advances to the Nc e | Zealand Government for the lifting c ■ I the embargo, and would not allow th > j interests of the potato growers of Aus i tralia to prevent negotiations with Nei a Zealand. J Deprived of N.Z. Market. 3 Mr. Lawson said that the whole hand r ling of the question of the New Zealani 1 embargo was one of the sorriest exhibi tions of sterility in statesmanship tlia > had ever been known! The Common , wealth Government was suspected b; I' the citrus growers of deceiving tlieir 3 1 He personally had not heard a candii ' j explanation of the situation. He mad r ' the charge against the Government, am his charge was supported by tlimajority of citrus growers. The citru J growers have been deprived of ttjp Nev : Zealand market for their produce, no ' because of lack of quality in their fruit but bedause of a certain line of policy being followed by the Commonwealtl ■ Government. The lose of the New Zea ■ land trade cost the citrus growers aboir ! £.500,000 a year, and in return the Gov ; ernment was compensating them to till >! extent of about £10,000 a year. He was > puzzled about the real* reasons for tin continuation of the embargo. The Government, Mr. Lawson said 1 was taxing the credulity of members anc of the citrus growers. It was too mucl to ask them to believe that the cliiel reason for the maintenance of the cm ; bargo was the fear of the introductior into' New Zealand of Mediterranean fly ' For a really permanent trading agree ; ment between the two Dominions Aus ! tralia would have to buy more from New Zealand. 1 Mr. Makin (Labour): You would sacri 1 fice the potato growers for the citru; ' growers. Mr. Lawson: I would like the Laboui party to state where it stands. ; Mr. Beaslev (Labour) :We could if wc 1 could get tlie facts from the Government. | Mr.' Mahoney (Labour) said that lie , stood for the protection of an Australian industry —the potato industry. Hp , I knew we'll who it was that was behind the movement on the other side of the House. "Stupid Bungling." Mr. Lazzarini (Labour) declared that the New Zealand market for citrus fruit had been lost through stupid bungling or something else. Mr. Stacey (Government) said that if Australia wanted Zealand to bu\ her citrus fruit she should be prepared to buv potatoes from New Zealand. "No Real Difficulty." Mr. Thompson (Country) declared that the citrus industry was in the hands of middlemen, who were among the greatest profiteers in Australia. While the people of Australia could not get cheap citrus fruit, the growers received practically nothing for cart loads of their fruit. The New Zealand market I was closed by the obstinate attitude of | the New Zealand Government. | Mr. Thorby: Only partly. Many thousands of cases are going from South ! Australia to New Zealand. Mr. Thompson said that there should be no real difficulty about composing the differences with New Zealand. "New Zealand wants our citrus fruit, and we do not want New Zealand potatoes, 7 ' he added. "As a representative of the bulk of the potato growers in New South Wales, I am going to oppose the lifting of the embargo. It is no use letting the citrus fruitgrowers think we will eventually weaken in this." The potato industry, declared Mr. Thompson, was also in the hands of soulless profiteers in the capital cities. The ! Federal and State Governments should ; endeavour to get New Zealand to buy ' Australian citrus fruits by buying New Zealand produce, such as fish and timber, ■ instead of importing it from other countries. In the meantime, the Government should arrange for representatives of the potato and citrus industries, whose interests were opposed, to confer on the situation. At present, the vital interests of the citrus industry were being sacrificed to the vital- interests of the potato industi^-. Embargo on Other Fruits. Mr. Thorby pointed out that the New! Zealand embargo applied not only to; citrus fruits, but to many other varieties of fruit of vital importance to Australia, such as cherries, passion fruit, pineapples, and bananas, besides many classes of vegetables. The Commonwealth had done everything in its power to persuade the New Zealand Government to lift the embargo. New Zealand had replied that it did not want to open negotiations for the time being.

"To show New Zealand that the Commonwealth was prepared to meet it, we lifted the embargo on New Zealand apples from disease free districts, and small consignments have already come into Australia," he added.