AUSTRALIAN FRUIT EMBARGO

Northern Advocate, 17 December 1932, Page 8

AUSTRALIAN FRUIT EMBARGO

The way in which the trade of different countries is interwoven is demonstrated by the Govern-ment's-decision to refuse the admission of Australian fruit into New Zealand. Up to the present time, large quantities of Australian oranges, grapes and other fruit have been sent to this Dominion, but Australia, for a number of years, has refused to admit New Zealand fruit into its territory. This refusal has been based on the belief that the scourge of lirdblight might be introduced into Australia from New Zealand. If there were any real danger of infection, no quarrel could be found with Australia’s policy, but it would appear, from the testimony of experts, that the danger of introducing the disease into Australia is extremely remote, the disease evidently being spread directly by means of trees and plants. If New Zealand, in prohibiting Australian fruit imports, were simply moved by a spirit of retaliation, its action would not bear close scrutiny. There is, however, another . reason advanced by the Government. It is pointed out that New Zealand fruitgrowers have endeavoured to develop a market in the .United States, in which country it is believed there is a possibility of considerable trade. The United States, unfortunately, has placed an embargo on New Zealand fruit, not alone because of the existence of tireblight in the Dominion, but because of the danger of infection. by the Mediterranean fruit fly, with which Australian fruit is affected. Consequently, as New Zealand imports Australian fruit, the United States will not run the risk of allowing New Zealand -fruit, which might carry the infection, to enter its terri-

! tory. New Zealand is, therefore, being doubly penalised by Ausitralia’s prohibition of Dominion I fruit. If the grounds upon which j Australia and the United States are professedly acting are truly ■ stated, there would seem to be no 1 likelihood of any change until Hie Dominion’s orchards are free from fireblight. At the same time, the prohibition of Australian fruit is a matter of more than passing importance to the New Zealand fruitgrower and to the public. The protection afforded the former will be very welcome, but it is to be hoped that the interests of the consumers will he carefully watched. INorthland, which produces oranges so plentifully, is particularly concerned ■ in the decision which the Govment has made.