THE ORANGE EMBARGO

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 462, 2 July 1937, Page 2

THE ORANGE EMBARGO

DR. SUTCH REPLIES TO I CRITIC Protection, Not Retaliation London, June 2. | Statements on New Zealand, made | in an article, “A Family Affair,” which appeared in the “New Statesman and Nation” on May 15, have called forth ‘a. reply from Dr. W. B. Sutch, a well-known New Zealand ' economist attached to ’the staff of the Minister of Finance, (the Hon. Walter Nash). The article, to which Dr. Sutch replies, was signed by Mr. Donald Cowie, formerly of Chris’tchurch and now living in London The following is Dr. Sutch’s reply, which is published in the latest issue of the “New Statesman and Na- i tion.”:— Mr. Cowie states thix't the New Zealand Government’s embargo on imports of Australian citrus fruits was an act of retaliation, r'alther than of protection, against the introduction of certain plant diseases infui New Zealand. The facts are these. “The United States Government had prohibited the importation of

New Zealand apples and pears, not a cause of any disease in New Zealand, but because that Dominion imported fruit from countries where Mediterranean fruit fly was prevalent, and by this round-about means, the fly might be introduced into the United Stales of America. The New Zealand Government thereupon prohibited the importation of fruit from countries infested by Mediterranean luit fly. Australia w'as one of these countries.

“One State, however'—'South Australia—was free from the fly; so New Zealand has admitted South Australian citrus fruit, and this has not precluded the United Stats*, from taking New Zealand apples and pears. To Protect New “It will be noted that there is not, therefore, a complete embargo againstAustralian citrus fruits, and that this partial embargo exists for the pro'tection< of New Zealand’s: trade with the United States. There is, also the position of New Zealand’s own citrus production. Mr. Cowie ! may not know, but there is already a I substantial lemon-growing industry in N<w Zealand, and orange growing is developing. I “For this reason alone. New Zee- ; I land needs protection from the Med- I tterranean fruit fly. In addition, New ; ■ Zealand has to give adequate oppori tunities for the marketing of Cook . . islafti'di oranges. The Cbok Islands | i are included in New Zealand terri- I : lory. ; i “Mr. Cowie infers that a subsidiary ! I reason for the New Zealand Govern- 1 i meat’s action was to encourage the | : importation of Californian oranges ; j from the United Stales. This was • ■ not a reason. Actually, it is the ; I trade in Jamacian oranges, which has > i developed recently, not the trade in • Californian. “‘New Zealand obtains its citrus fruits princially from local sources, from Australia, and from the Cook Islands. The restriction was placed on the importation of Australian fruit in /December, 1932. The toti.l j imports of oranges and lemons into ! the Dominion in. 1932 amounted to J 11,917,2821 b. the figure tor 1936, was I

15,170,3981 b. | “Taking into consideration the increase in local production, it is cl ar that the partial restriction on imports of Australian fruit has not resulted in any diminution of supplies. “Grapefruit Scarce. “Incidentally, Mr Cowie states that grapefruit became scarce in New Zealand because of the Australian ■embargo. The facts are that New* Zealand does not import grapefruit from Australia. In fact, in the Australian Production Statistics, grape, fruit does not appear as tan Australian product. He statjes, too, that New Zealand groves more potations’ than Australia. The reverse is* true. ! Australian production of potatoes [is nearly three times that of New I Zealand. "Mt. Cowie argues that because Australian currency is at approximate parity with that of New Zealand, it is cheaper for New Zealand 'to import from Australia This is i absurd. It ig. not the value of the i Australian pound as compared With ; the New Zealand pound thLt matters i—the important thing is the value of ; Australian currency as compared with •the values of the currencies. of coun tries which are competing with Aus- ; tralia in supplying the New Zealand i mai ket. ' “Mr. Cowie speaks of ‘mutuLl | tariff walls’ between Australia and i New Zealand. This i& misjeiadinf;:. Australia- and New Zealand extend to each other, with a few exceptions, the British preferential tariff. And the New Zealand tariff on British goods, which includes that on Aus- , tral'lan goods, is probably the lowest II in the world. “Mr. Cowie tpeaks of an inferiority complex existing in New i Zealand'. If that is true, New Zealand is in the same class I’s the ! United Stakes, Australia, Germany, England, Poland and Italy ”