The Press Monday, December 19, 1932. The Fruit Embargo.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20733, 19 December 1932, Page 10

The Press Monday, December 19, 1932. The Fruit Embargo.

The Government's decision to put an embargo on imports of Australian fruit and vegetables into the Dominion has aroused justifiable alarm among fruit retailers and consumers. It is possible that in the case of some fruits and vegetables local growers will be able to meet the demand at a reasonable price; but the embargo will certainly make citrus fruits much more expensive and the supply less continuous. As oranges and lemons are important, if not essential, articles of diet, and as it is at present particularly desirable that the cost of living should not be increased, this is a very serious matter. Moreover, the cable news from Australia on the subject shows that there is some danger of the embargo leading to retaliation through Customs duties by the Australian Government. For these reasons it is to be hoped that the question of the fruit trade between Australia and New Zealand will be discussed much more fully and frankly than it has been up to the present. The logic of the statement with which Mr Downie Stewart accompanied his announcement of the embargo is not easy to follow. He points out that New Zealand fruit is barred from the United States because New Zealand allows the import of Australian fruit, which is affected by the Mediterranean fruit fly, and suggests that henceforth local growers will be able to reopen a profitable trade with the United States. This is at least doubtful, for the United States tariff: on fruit is now heavy and would probably be raised if imports from New Zealand increased substantially. Mr Downie Stewart's further point that the embargo lias not been imposed to protect local growers is not worth much in view of the fact that it does protect local growers very effectively. In any case, the Minister seems to contradict himself on this point when he admits, in so many words, that the purpose of the embargo is to induce the Australian Government to lift its embargo on New Zealand fruit. If the Government had been cc.npletely frank it would have admitted that it had been influenced in its decision by the agitation among fruit growers for increased protection and that it suspects an economic motive behind Australia's elaborate precautions against fireblight. There are, it seems, three questions involved; and it is most necessary that they should bo kept distinct. The first is whether the danger of fireblight justifies the Australian embargo, a question which could most satisfactorily be answered by a committee of experts appointed jointly by the two 'Governments. The second is whether, if the Australian Government refuses to modify its attitude, the slender prospect of developing trade with the United States is adequate compensation for the injury to consumers which must result from the New Zealand embargo. The third is whether New Zealand growers are entitled to increased protection. In answering the last two questions the Government ought to remember that, though local growers are entitled to a sympathetic hearing, its first concern must be to maintain adequate supplies of fruit at reasonable prices. Pasture Improvements. It is disturbing as well as flattering to learn from the cable news that dairy farmers in New South Wales are successfully adopting the improved methods of pasture growing that have in recent years been a feature of New Zealand dairying. The latest report of the Department of Agriculture suggests that owing partly to the depression, New Zealand dairy farmers are in danger of forgetting their own good example, for in tho last twelve months there has been a noticeabls deterioration of some pasture lands, particularly in the North Island. As Australian butter already rivals Now Zealand butter in quality, and as it has the benefit of an export subsidy, any large increase in Australian production through improved pastures may seriously affect the New Zealand market. It is therefore most necessary that the pasture improvements effected in New South Wales should spur New Zealand dairy farmers and the Government to a renewed effort to improve the quality of butter exported and to maintain the productivity of pasture lands.

of the Upper Chamber, a great deal more extreme socialistic legislation would have appeared on the Statute Book. Mr Laug, with an eye perpetually turned to the future, was astute enough to use the situation for his own advantage. He had already promised far more than he could fulfill and it was therefore convenient to be able to say, " Wc had every intention of completing our programme but the Upper House prevented us." MiLang made some show of his intention to abolish the Council and prevailed upon the Governor to appoint a sufficient number of his supporters to enable him to do so. Unaccountably, these appointees refused to can-y out their own political death sentence. A further body of union secretaries was later appointed and finally commanded the Council vote, but by that time the days of the Lang Government were numbered. It is these appointees, however, who are now busily engaged in defeating the Government. Tor this farcical situation former NationalistCountry Party administrations arc not blameless. The Bavin Government, which had placed reform of the Council in tlio forefront of its programme, did nothing to bring it about and the present Premier, Mr Stevens, is suffering the consequences of that inertia. It is now a question for the Governor to make further appointments of Government supporters to enable the administration to function, but he will doubtless feel reluctant to swell the proportions of an already overmanned Chamber.