CITRUS FRUIT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20503, 3 January 1935, Page 9

CITRUS FRUIT.

Growers Resent New Zealand Embargo. SYDNEY COMMENT. SYDNEY, December 23. “That the conference between New Zealand and Commonwealth Ministers regarding trade relations had broken down was regarded as nothing less than calamitous,” stated Mr James Heane, president of the Fruitgrowers’ Federation of New South Wales recently, reports the “Sydney Morning Herald” ‘‘Since December, 1932, the New Zealand embargo against Australian fruit, had made the fruitgrower of Australia, and of New South Wales in particular, the buffer in an inter-dominion trade controversy. “At first it was the prevalence of fruit fly in Australian fruit that was stated to be the reason for the embargo. Then the reason became an objection on the part of U.S.A. to doing business with New Zealand if she admitted fruit to their dominion from flyinfested countries. Eventually we ascertained that the embargo was retalia- _ because we would not admit New Zealand apples and potatoes. Phis situation Australia partly met by issuing a special proclamation on April 19 whereby apples from New Zealand could be admitted, provided they came from districts free of fire blight. The fruitgrower was then told to control his eagerness for a resumption of New Zealand fruit trade pending the present conference of Ministers from each Government. In the meantime, the New South Wales mandarin and orange crops have been marketed and extremely low prices accepted. The cherry season is also well advanced, the disastrous prices received being attributable in part to the absence of New Zealand shipping. This is the position that has been endured with considerable patience by the fruitgrowers and with trust and confidence in those negotiating our 1 case. The decision of the conference, therefore, that the embargo on our fruit is not to be lifted, comes with a devastating unexpectedness and creates the impression that full and complete representation of the case for the fruitgrower of New South Wales has not been made. “ This federation of New South Wales is speaking for over 7000 growers, of whom 4429 are growers of citrus, cultivating 32.525 acres of trees, and producing almost 3.000.000 bushels of fruit.. It includes also 340 growers of cherries, a number of growers of bananas, pineapples, cucumbers, and other fruits, the price of which has been considerably reduced as a result of the situation. “The 300,000 cases of oranges taken by New Zealand from the Australian market in the past must be measured in terms of demand, and the consequent drop in local prices as a result of the loss of that demand. Unfortunately a plain statement of I the situation.” Mr Heane added, “ re- | veals that the New South Wales or- | chardist, and the citrus grower in par- | ticular, has reached the end of his I tether. He has continued his labours jas a result of political promises to i amend the position, and he now feels i that he is the victim of political treach- | erv. and no bolster-up array of alleged j reasons in regard to the menace of s e ' w Zealand fruit to Tasmanian apples or Victorian potatoes, will convince I him that the rehabilitation of primary industries is being considered seriously and impartially.”