NEW ZEALAND FRUIT REGULATIONS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13110, 8 May 1908, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND FRUIT REGULATIONS.

THE NEW SOUTH WALES

PROTEST.

HOC*. iIR MoNAB'S REPLY

A cablegram ipnibliehied. in yesterday's issue of '"The Press" stated ilfoat, & deputation of Now South Wialce fruitgrowers protested to tihe Minister of Agriculture aginiois* tie New Zealand regulations requiring a certificate declaring tbaib citrus fruits, imported into tihe Dominion, had not been grown w.iithin a mile of any fruit fly infected spot. The Minister stited that be had written xo the New Zealand .Minister for Agriculture, suggesting that tJbo resolutions of the In4or-Statte Fruit Conference might be> accepted by him, but had received no rt.j*!y. Willi e ho dkl oiot detsiro to make threats, sull if tlie New ZeaJand Government was nc't reasoliable m tho matior, the Uoverument of tJiis St<ate might try tlie same sort of metiuxl wludh had beau tried suoeeeisfuJly with Victoria. If a certificate that no fruit fly was presemt in a. ehlpriieht was giv-eoi that ougiirt to satisfy Now Zealand.

'i'Ji© oaWeigram was brought- under tho oiotice of the Hon. K. McNob. Minister of Agriculture, who passed through Ghrisuimirch on his way to NVetlingtou last eveai.ing. iMr McNab made the following stiLtonienit to a 'Press" reporter:—'jly answer to tihe e.t-iiteniont that I havo not replied to tho ilini&tor'6 letter is tljatj so fax, 1 have received no communication from him, and on communication with Wellington I learned thatf tho I>epartni€<nt lias received no eommiunk-ation from tho Ivlinister ojther. 'l-lio Secretary of Agriculture has received from tlio Secretary of Agriculture in Sydney a communication which appears to be what the Minister refers to, and-he' tells mc that he has the matecial for. the reply, but is waiting for my approval before sending it. The suggestion is made in the cable that I have not replied to the Minister's correspondence, but he has not written to mo.

"Speaking on the merits of the case, Mr McNab continued, "the fact that the growers are kicking because the regulation requires a declaration that tnere must be no knowa fruit fly within a mile of the orchard exporting, shows that fruit fly must be very prevalent there. In New Zealand we have Known only of some two or three outbreaks, so that we are almost immune from it. Our growers oould make the declaration with ease even if the radius were increased to five or ten miles. The fruit fly, however, is so serious a prclblem that we must faoe either a regulation such as a mile radius, or total Drohdbition, and the mile radius was the alternative selected.

"The caible reports the Minister as saying that it would be sufficient if the fruit were declared free of the fly sen*. That, however, must be a contraction in the telegram, because no Minister would maike such a statement. It is not the presence of the fruit fly that is objected to; it is fruit in which the fly has deposited its egg. and that cannot be detected until it has developed after some days. If the fruit were taken from the orchard and sent straight away to New Zealand, no inspector could tell whether it was loaded with the elements we desire to prevent or not. But after the' voyage, and' on reaching the coast of New Zealand, it would be sufficiently developed for ns to be able to ascertain Hβ presence in thereat bulk of oases, so that any inspection in Australia is of no uee at alf, except that stuff already rotten with the maggot would be detected". •

'■"VViliat the "Minister means by his reference to the treatment of Victoria I do not know. The best advice that I can hare is that even when the fruit comes here we cannot, toll whether it is clean, and the certificate is an additional evidence of its freedom from disease, as well as a sort of drag-net to catch all the uncertain elements that cannot be detected after investigation here. Of course, investigation in Australia would be of no use even if wo had our own men investigating. Immense pressure was brought, to bear on the Government to get the importation a-bsolutdy prohibited. I couJd not; agree to that, but it would be better than the danger of the fruit fly. The whole thing shows that.the New South Wales growers have Sieen unable to combat the fruit fly themselves. That would be an element to consider if we put in their hands the inspection of fruit that is to come to New Zealand. Wβ have never in New Zealand had a second outbreak at the same centre, and that shows that our system is successful."