THE ANIMALS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION ACT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3906, 4 May 1877, Page 2

THE ANIMALS IMPORTATION PROHIBITION ACT.

(From the " Lyltelton Times," April 24.) The Animals Importation Prohibition Act of 1876 lias, -with, the assistance of the Order in Council which came into force on the loth of this month, revolutionised the live stock trade of New Zealand. It is a measure of the greatest importance, and one upon the expediency of which the colony was divided in opinion ; yet it was passed without any considera

I tion worthy of the name. It is, of course, • impossible to have the fire of legislation without some smoke of discussion or explanation. This great conflagration was attended with the very smallest and most unsatisfactory kind of smoke. In the session of 1873, the house was against prohibiting the importation of stock from Great Britain. The theorists who held that the long voyages and stringent quarantine removed all danger of importing disease "prevailed against their opponents. The r quarantine regulations were much strengthened, and for three years importation continued. Before the session of 1876, it became known that the Government intended to ask Parliament to -re-consider the question, as the Australian Governments had determined to lengthen the term of 5 two years for which their prohibition had been originally cpnfined. Soon after the meeting of Parliament a Select Committee was appointedto report upon the question, and in due time reported upon the necessity of- at once prohibiting all importation into New>Zealand from beyond the Australian Colonies. While the committee was pursuing its not arduous labors, a Bill — Animals Importation" Prohibition Bill— was intfoducedinto the Upper House,, which got % far as committee, and ended by being discharged on a question of privilege. Another subsequently was originated rin the Lower House, and passed through all its stages without a word of discussion. The second reading of the first Bill, provoked a dis- " cussion in the Council which was of a ■■ sketchy descidption. The Hon. Dr. Pollen, in introducing the Bill, struct the prevailing chord when he said that, while all the other colonies " had the privilege of sending their stock to New Zealand, this colony -was prohibited from exporting stock to them." The Hon. J. Hall was not inclined to oppose the measure, but would like first to see the report of the committee of the other House and the account of its proceedings. The committee, he thought — and his' words, to.. those who have seen that account, seem f • to be tinged with a fine irony — had probably taken a great deal of evidence on the subject. Of the other speakers, some held that importation from Great Britain was dangerous, while others contended that the chief source of apprehension was Victoria. The second reading of the second Bill only produced a remark from the : Hon. W. Robinson, who said that, " very- fortunately, they had got all they desired in the shape of good beasts of every description." This Bill passed, and its' result is the Order in Council prohibiting, the importation of sheep, cattle and pigs into New Zealand, from places beyond the Australian colonies, for two years from April 15 of the present year. . -, As we have seen, there was no discussion worthy of the name. . Parliament relied on the Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee did surprisingly little in the Avay of research. Most people expected that it would have taken up the subject where it was left off in 1873. To reverse the decision then arrived at, the production of evidence was necessary. The country looked forward to this with confidence. It had a right to expect that a decision to recommend the alteration of a long-continued successful policy would have been accompanied by exhaustive reasons. The Committee held seven meetings. The business of the first was confined to the election of a chairman, and at the second there was not a quorum. At the other five, most of the- time was ocrapied in examining witnesses with respect to a local cattle disease at Kaikoura, of which nobody knew the name. At one of them a letter was received from Mr Matthew Miller, an enterprising commission agent of Hawke's Bay, who enclosed a correspondence he. "had had with a Queensland Scab Inspector, and also a letter from Sir D. M 'Lean to himself. These papers show that the Queensland Stock Inspector— the Chief Inspector, by the way— opened the ball by informing Sir Miller that he thought reciprocity between the Australian Colo-; nies and New Zealand — impossible as^" long as the latter continued to. import from Europe — would be extremely beneficial to the breeders and public of both countries. Mr Miller thought so too, and Sir D. M'Lean concurred with him. They all thought that this desirable consummation ought to be forthwith attained by legislation. Mr Miller spoke of the agreement of 1573, and the very great advantages which ISTew Zealand longwools possess over those of other countries: The committee at once presented to the House an ad interim report recommending the prohibition of all stock from beyond the Australian Colonies. Then the committee received a report from Mr Boulton, of Canterbury, which, as he told them, showed it to be niadness to continue to import sheep from Victoria." Soon after the committee closed their arduous labors, leaA'ihg the Kaikoura question exactly where it was when they took it up, and sending in their final report, in which a clause had been inserted in accordance with Mr Boulton's warning. "With the first recommendation — to" prohibit, importation of cattle, sheep, and pigs, from places beyond the Australian ; colonies — the Government have complied. Though the only evidence upon which the committee introduced into their report the clause recommending the issue of regulations to prevent the introduction of fluke from Victoria, pronounced it to be "madness to continue to import", sheep from there, " nothing seems to have been done in the matter. We are not prepared to say that the result arrived at by the committee was wrong. It is possible that, although stock lias been imported for years into the colony' since the outbreak of the foot and mouth disease without evil results, the disease may have assumed a more malignant form than ever in Great Britain, and so made it dangerous to continue importing. It may also very well happen that exceptional circumstances have preserved us from receiving in our ports undetected instances of disease. There may be many, other reasons besides the promptings q%^-self-interest, which may be advanced for the course adopted. The fact remains that this reason is the only one given. We refused three years ago to ratify the agreement which our representatives made with those of the neighboring colonies. We did so because we thought it was perfectly safe to go on importing from Great Britain, in spite of the outbi-eaks there of formidable diseases. Now that our policy has placed us in a position to command a market, we wish to revert to the original agreement. Naturally our neighbo rs are furious. Our breeders expect to make large profits by selling in . the Australian markets, but these markets are not open to them. In New South Wales there is a powerful agitation to have the ports tlirown open to British as well as other stock. This agitation it would not be surprising to see extend to Victoria. Unquestionably it is to their interest for all the Australian Colonies to reciprocate with us, but they may not like to see us enjoy any monoply of supply. They may read our history not as we have done. From a safe importation of three years, we have practically concluded that importation is dangerous. Our neighbors may draw the opposite inference, in which case the advantages of reciprocity would be diminished. Drawing the opposite inference, they may even prefer to look solely to Great Britain for their supplies, — winch would be a justy punishment for the not creditable manner in which the whole matter has been handled. • - .