THE FRUIT INDUSTRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22052, 7 September 1933, Page 10

THE FRUIT INDUSTRY

NEW ZEALAND FEDERATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE THE QUESTION OF EMBARGOES (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 6. The annual conference of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation was'opened to-day, the president (Mr T. C. Brash) occupying the chair. In moving the adoption of the annual report and balance sheet, Mr Brash said that at the 1932 conference they were cheered by the report from the Ottawa Conference. Some saw in it a drawing together of the units of the Empire for the strengthening of that great commonwealth of nations, visualising the possibility of beneficent service to the world as a whole, and others had looked only to financial gain. If overseas prices for primary produce generally were to be taken as an index, then those who took the lower view had been sorely disappointed. Yet Ottawa had brought real gain, for it had assisted in convincing them that not in seeking to place the British Empire in a water-tight compartment were their troubles going to be solved. Not by the spirit of national selfishness exhibited in quotas, restrictions, tariffs, etc., could any single nation permanently better its position. They had looked forward with high hopes to the World Economic Conference which was opened on June 12 in London, The King, in opening that conference, and speaking of its great task, had said: “It will not be accomplished except through goodwill and sincere co-operation.” In the report of the Preparatory Commission it was stated; “ If failure does result it will not be by reason of any inevitable natural law.” But it had failed, and failed by reason of a lack of a world view on the part of those men who led the nations, and who were but representative of the great rank and file. There was need now for the spirit of service. It was ceasing to be respectable for a man to boast of taking more out of the world than he was putting into it. The world had become a neighbourhood, and there was hardly a spot on the globe where a man could escape from world dependence and world responsibility. Fruitgrowing ‘was one of the lesser primary industries, but it could give a great lead if the individuals who make up this organisation were imbued with the high ideals and laudable ambitions which were so necessary at the present time in all parts of the globe. The year had been difficult, for them all. It had been difficult fo/ the directors and the staff. A great many problems had had to be faced. For instance, the raising of the exchange on London, which so greatly benefited primary producers, added greatly to the trading operations of the federation. Fluctuation in exchange between the various countries added to the problem of purchasing overseas. The directors had from time to time urged the necessity of doing everything possible to open the Australian market for New Zealand fruit. There were few subjects so fruitful in animated discussion as embargoes and tariffs, and the Australian fruit embargo had been no exception. “ One is, I think,” said Mr Brash, "justified in looking askance at all forms of embargoes, quotas, and other abnormal trade restrictions, not only from the point of view of the dislocation of business immediately resulting, but also the fact that they are likely to prove to be twoedged weapons capable of cutting both ways. A one-way trade or an unduly hampered trade is not a healthy trade, and sooner or later repercussions are likely to emanate to the detriment of gll concerned. Nevertheless, action in either direction may at times be justified as the lesser of the existing evils. So far as embargoes are concerned, it must be fully admitted that every country has the right to impose and maintain an embargo as a safeguard aginst the introduction of a serious disease, if after due consideration of all the factors such action is deemed to he unavoidable; but, even so, an embargo should not be lightly indulged in or made more irksome than the circumstances warrant, for once imposed they are difficult to remove, in consequence of the resistance which is sure to arise from those factions that have benefited by this form of protection. “However, as previously stated, there may be times when an embargo is justified, and this claim, I contend, applied for a considerable time prior to December last, when the New Zealand Government took action in the direction of prohibiting the further importation of fruit into this country from Australia.” To envisage the position at all correctly, Mr Brash continued, due consideration had to be given to what was obtaining for a number of years prior to December, 1932, in connection with the fruit trade of America, Australia, and New Zealand as it concerned this country in order to realise the psychological effect such a position could not_ fail to have had on the fruitgrowers of this Dominion. He then went on to give a summary of that position. “Early in 1920,” he said, “Australia prohibited the entry, _ inter alia, of all New Zealand fruits into that country. This was shortly followed by a similar imposition by the U.S.A. Australia’s action was on account of fireblight, a disease recently introduced into New Zealand from America, while America’s action was based on Mediterranean fruit fly, a disease that did not exist in New Zealand, but in Australia; consequently, New Zealand was penalised and her outward trade in fruit to Australia and America debarred on account of a disease she had, as well as a disease she might get, while the inward trade in fruit from both countries was continued throughout the period, without interruption. Both countries no doubt felt justified in adopting their respective attitudes. This right has never been challenged, but the right of this country to take similar action must also be conceded, and it should have been patent to anyone that a state of affairs that permitted th e continuous importation of fruit from two countries while their own markets were closed to similar produce from this country could not be permanently tolerated by the fruitgrowers of the Dominion. “ The New Zealand authorities opened negotiations with the American Government, urging a reconsideration of New Zealand's position. These conversations were continued over a considerable period, but the most that could be had from America was a virtual promise that the matter would be open to favourable consideration in the event of New Zealand prohibiting the entry of fruit from countries in which Mediterranean fruitfly was known to exist, and to eliminating the danger of this pest finding its way into America in New Zealand fruit. “ Attention was then directed to Australia. It was, of course, recognised that Australia had every right to debar our fruit, if, on mature consideration, it was thought that to act otherwise would mean taking too great a risk in the direction of introducing fireblight to that country. In passing, however, it was pointed out that fireblight was not readily introduced into a country by means of fruit alone, a contention supported by the fact that fireblight has existed in the United States of America and Canada for upwards of 199 years, and that those countries have shipped millions of cases of fruit to all parts of the world without damage in this regard to other countries. The United States ships several millions of cases of fruit annually to the. United Kingdom without fireblight having made its appearance there. “ Apart from this, however, it was pointed out that there were several important fruitgrowing areas in New Zealand in wheih fireblight did not exist, and that fruit from these areas at least would represent no risk whatever; but. nevertheless, if Australia still thought she could not afford to take the risk, the matters was hers to determine, it was, however, stated that if some easement ot the position was not forthcoming the New Zealand authorities would be forced into the position of deciding whether they were more justified in continumg to provide a market for Australian fruit or in taking such action as would provide an additional market in America for their own growers.

“ Warnings of the action being forced on the New Zealand Government were plentifully supplied to Australian authorities over several years past, and, although latterly disease, notably Ihnps and fruit-fly, began to enter largely into the scheme of things, suggesting that they

In themselves would have led to an early readjustment of the Australian-New Zealand fruit trade, I feel convinced that had Austrtlia at any time during the controversy agreed to accept New Zealand apples and pears, if from even the fire-blight-free areas only, the proclamation of December would have been withheld, and that the disease position would have been met by less drastic action. “This is a subject that has of late been freely commented upon in the press of both New Zealand and Australia by affected interests in both countries; but, with a few exceptions, it is very evident, judging from alleged reasons why the embargo was imposed, that these commentators had a very limited knowledge of the true position, or, having that knowledge, preferred to ignore its use in favour of arguments more likely to influence the sympathies of the public in favour of their cause. Contrary to the suggestions that generally ran through practically the whole of the press propaganda referred to, the embargo was not originally intended to be a trade embargo in the accepted sense, that is to say, its imposition was not for the purpose of protecting any section of the fruitgrowing industry of New Zealand against Australian competition: but rather for the purpose of opening further markets necessary to meet the requirements of the rapidly expanding fruit industry ot the country; an action practically forced upon the Government in fairness to the New Zealand fruitgrower after years of endeavour to effect the aim in view less drastically had failed.” The directors, Mr Brash went on, had felt the burden of increased liability in financing growers through, a very difficult period. They had rejoiced that it had been possible to use the funds of the federation for this purpose, and if there were those who had been disappointed because they were unable to secure all the help they required, it should be remembered that the directors were trustees for all the growers who had an interest in the funds of the organisation, and whilst seeking to give help to the uttermost, had at the same time to act with reasonable oare. Growers would remember that for years discussion took place regarding the great need of improving the local marketing of fruit. The first move under the Dominion mark scheme was made 18 months ago. The first season made evident the necessity for the federation to take a very much firmer hold of this proposal if it were to be made a success. As a result the distribution and sale of Dominion mark fruit was undertaken by the board, and by the end of December the federation would have handled probably over 150,000 cases. The ideal of the Dominion mark scheme was the supplying to_ the retailer fruit of a guaranteed quality, and the grower could make this possible. With a guaranteed quality and well advertised an adequate price would eventually be secured. The balance sheet showed that the net profit was £615 lower than the previous year, but this reduction had been brought about by carrying forward into next year’s business portion of the export revenue. The financial position of the federation was thoroughly sound. There were no “ dud ” assets, and the capital available for assisting growers increased steadily. The report and balance sheet were adopted.