FRUIT-FLY SAFEGUARDS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 191, 7 May 1908, Page 2

FRUIT-FLY SAFEGUARDS.

AUSTRALIANS COMPLAIN. ' A MINISTERIAL THREAT., A Press Association cablegram, from Sydney, states' .that yesterday a deputation' of fruit-growers protested to the Minister for j< Agriculture (Hon. J. Perry) against the New r Zealand regulations requiring a certificate do- j, claring that citrus fruit 3 exported to the e Dominion were not grown within a niilo of t 4 fruit-fly infested spot. ). Tho Minister, in reply, stated .that lie had' v written to tho New Zealand Minister for Agriculture suggesting that tho resolutions j of tho liitor-Stato Fruit Conference might ho ) s accepted by him,', but had received no reply. While lie did not desire to make threats, if s the Now Zealand Government was not'rea- a Sonable, tho Government of Now South f Wales might try the same sort of method, t which it had tried successfully with . Vic- j toria. If a certificate that no fruit-fly was t present in the shipment was given, that y ought to satisfy New Zealand'. o The regulations complained of apply not g only to citrus fruits, but to all other "im- t . ported fruits. The value of tho New Zealand p fHiit-growing industry is roughly estimated j, lit £1,000,000 a year, and tho Department, jj iVith the full support of the industry, lately t, made tho regulations to protect this industry a from imported pests more rigid. It was felt t that, the old system of. landing fruit iiidi3- c crimiridtely and trusting to an examination J of a small percentage to ensure the safety of jthe 'whole lino was not a sufficiently sure r way of'expelling tho fruit fly—the worst of j all orchard pests. It was, therefore, resolved to require a certificate from the shipper, ; countersigned by an Australian Government | officer, certifying that the fruit was from an r orchard at least a mile. fr6m any place in- j footed with fruit fly: ..This is,; to a large extent, tho prictice in South Australia, and it 1 is hbld to be the oiily safe method. Irispcc- \ ticrh still follows oil arrival. The danger is j Shown by the. fact that fruit fly got a' teni- j porary .lodgment in Auckland-'last. scaSoU,. , and in. Hawke's Bay and Marlborough' in the season before; - These outbreaks wW& stamped out. A mere certificate that the fruit ,is free froin fly when shipped would.be : utterly useless as a safeguard, alid t-ftd Suggestion from "the Australian Minister, who doubtless knows ivhathe is talking about, , will create coiisiderablo surprise among New j Zeilantlers. Tho threat that, he has thfoivil i dut to retaliate with "the same sort of ' method, frhicli had boon tried successfully 1 vfrith Victoria" probably means that the im-. j portatioii bf certain New Zealand produce, potatoes, etc., would bo prohibited. This is ' dquivalent- to saving that our legislation -to ■ dsclude/pests. frill bo replied to with ?»gislation that does, hot aim . to exclude pests—a fteculiar attitudo for a Minister to take up. 1 This list shows the sort of danger New Zealand incurred front the fruit fly last year:— Casts of imported fruit-condemned for fruit fly from April-to December last, inclusive. Apl. Mav June July Aug. Oct. Nov. Dec. 53 127 151 ■ 120 82 35 250 013 ■These, were contained in 46 consignments. ' The numbor condemned in the previous Decenibar was' only 346. Tho fresh fruit we im-' ported ill tho year 1906, from all parts, was • valtied at £162,000, of which £127,000 came ih free of duty. ; ■'