CITRUS FRUIT EMBARGO.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 231, 28 August 1933, Page 6

CITRUS FRUIT EMBARGO.

The removal of the New Zealand Government’s embargo against the importation of Austra-lian-citrus fruit, in so far as it relates to South Australia, will no doubt be welcomed by the people to whom oranges are an essential article of diet. The South Island benefits immediately because it does not enjoy to the same extent as the North the advantages of the Island trade, but there is promise in Mr Coates’s statement of early shipments for this part of the Dominion. The imposition of the embargo on December 16 last deprived the Australian citrus fruitgrowers of a market for at least 200,000 cases. The consequence in Sydney at least has been an unprecedented glut of fruit, which possibly never before sold at the uneconomic values which have ruled there. The Commonwealth Government tried to ease the position in regard to oranges by giving a conditional guarantee to oversea shipments, but the mandarin growers, because their fruit is not suitable for distant shipment, could not receive such aid. The Australian grower has waxed indignant because of New Zealand’s embargo, but he has ignored the true circumstances. For many years the Commonwealth has refused to admit New Zealand apples and pears because of the danger of fireblight. Then, in December, the way was opened for shipments to the United States, which had hitherto refused them as we imported fruit from Australia, a country in part affected by the Mediterranean fruit fly. This necessitated the application to Australia of the same regulation as it had imposed on New Zealand. Now, however, as South Australia is not affected by the fruit fly, the United States has stated that imports of the former’s citrus fruits will not prejudice the entry of New Zealand apples and pears into America. This explains why the embargo was imposed and why it still applies to New South Wales where the fruit fly is prevalent. There was no other reason and Australian critics admitted it was in order. As an Australian journal said, the protest against the prohibition must be ruled quite out of court. The Minister for Commerce (Mr Stewart) also admitted that if restraint were placed upon other countries by the Commonwealth for health reasons, “they could do the same to us.” Such embargoes arc, however, a great hindrance and irritation to trade, and the relations in this respect between the two countries have not been very happy. A better spirit leading to their removal wherever possible would be in the undoubted interests of both.