DISSATIS RAROTONGA.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 251, 22 October 1919, Page 10

DISSATIS RAROTONGA.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the 11th September I notice extracts from the report ot the Resident Commissioner of Rarotonga. Some of the Commissioner's statements regarding the prices paid for fruit in itarotonga are very misleading, and, with your kind permission, 1 would like to make a few comments, and, at the sumo time, deal with other communications which have recently appeared in the Press on _the same subject. Without in any way taking up the battle on behalf of the traders, I wish to point out many inaccuracies in the above communications. For instance, in a letter to the "Star" of tbe 2nd .September, Tinomana, D. Lain, and a string of other natives state that last year tho prices received by the natives for their fruit was 1/0. and sobietimcs as low as 1/ per case. 1 have never known as low a price us 1/ per case to be paid for fruit under any circumstances. One. shilling and sixpence per case has frequently been paid for fruit, but that was for fruit on the plantation, the expense of carting to tin- wharf and other incidentals to be borne by the buyer, thesoi charges bringing the price on the wharf to 2/0 per case, all charges included. When the cost of the case is added to this, the price on the wharf is 5/ per case. This is the lowest price at which, during many years' experience. I have ever known fruit to be bought in Rarotonga. These important deiails are left out of consideration by your correspondents. Fruit bought on the above basis would make it necessary, with the added cost of carriage to New Zealand and selling commission in 'New Zealand, for the buyer to realise 0/ per case in New Zealand before lie could recoup his e\-1 penses; in other words, a net price of 1 0 j I per case in Rarotonga means 0/ per case, landed in New Zealand. On top of tliisj the buyer risks the deterioration and. occasionally the complete loss of the! fruit owing to steamers not arriving up| to time, as well as the ordinary risks j attaching to the shipment of perishable produce. 'fhe Resident Commissioner and youri other correspondents say that 2/0 pei'i ease was the price offered by the traders this year, which means 10/ per case in , Auckland when everything has been taken into account, as pointed out above (more than 10/ in Christchurch. where freight charges come to morel. To the best of my knowledge 3/ per case was the lowest price paid, but taking it at the 2/0 stated, it appears to mc, speaking as a grower shipping my own fruit, that the nntives would have been lucky had they been able to secure an average price of 2/0 per case net in Rarotonga. In looking over my account sales from January to August of this year. I find that I have shipped a total of 2013 cases of fruit to Auckland and the Southern port«, which realised in New Zealand n gross return of £1104 8/2, which, after deducting all expenses, with the exception of growing, gathering, and packing the fruit, left a net result ot L' 454 7/3. which equals 3/1J for a case of packed fruit at the plantation, or "Jd per case more than was offered b the traders to the natives (according to the statements referred to). It must he remembered that fruit from European plantations shows a better average return of 1/ per case or upwards, as compared with that fruit sold by the natives to the traders. It would appear that the Resident Commissioner, in diving into the fruit business at the eleventh hour when the industry is on its last legs, is trying to do something to offset past neglect, hut he has left the main difficulties untouched, and what he has attempted has been done in nn untactful manner, without seeking the co-operation of the people and at the risk of stirring up racial antagonism. It will take a long time to restore the fruit industry to its former importance, for, whilst the Commissioner has been tinkering with nonessential undertakings tlie mainstay of the population, i.e. the fruit industry, has gone from bad to worse. Ro far as the people here know the Commissioner has done nothing to lessen the enormous cost of marketing a case of fruit. We have never heard his voice raised in protest against the continually increasing freight charges, or file 150 per cent rise in tbe price of fruit cases, when the cost of limber in New Zealand has ony risen by 28 per cent during the same period. He has done nothing to bring about a reduction in the Auckland selling charges of 10 per cent plus 5d per case for carriage and wharfage. This selling charge is 2J per cent higher than in Wellington or Christchurch; moreover, at the latter port the fruit is carried over the railway from Lyttelton to Christchurch, and landed in the auctioneers' rooms for an inclusive charge of 7Jd per ease. We have never heard his protest against the unfair preference ot 2J per cent given by the Auckland brokers to the Fiji shippers, as compared with Cook Islands shippers. The Commissioner has been content to lift Id per case from our fruit as a wireless maintenance tax. but neglected in return to keep the growers posted with regard to shipping information. Very little, if any, attempt has been made to educate the native growers up to a better standard in the packing and general treatment of their fruit, without which the industry cannot expand. Instead of attending to all these important matters which must be the basis of prosperity for the Cook Islands, and incidentally of legitimate revenue for the administration, he has resorted to an increased taxation on decreased! production, the new taxation amountingl to roughly £2000 per annum during the last two years. i In addition, the revenue from customs I has been swelled, owing to the percentage basis upon which it is levied; fori instance, a pair of denim pants were for-1 merly sold to the natives at 4/0, and] paid an import duty of say Oil per pair | ad valorem. At the present time these pants pay a duty of something like 3/ to the Government. Other things on tlio' same basis. Thus we have an increased i administrative revenue, wliich no doubt I looks well on paper. At the same time: the trade of the Islands has decreased I from £220.221 in 1913 to £182.340 in! 1010, for the year ending March 31. This is a condition without parallel, for I whilst taxation has increased in New; Zealand, flu- trade figures likewise show' a proportionate increase. The present j depression in the Cook Islands taken in j conjunction with the enormously increased cost of necessities has compelled the people to adopt a very low standard! of living as compared with formerly. ! The evils afflicting the Cook Islands have their roots in the autocratic method of administration, which excludes the people (both native and white) from taking any real part in the management of affairs, and prevents them bringing local experience to bear upon their own peculiar problems and dealing with them in their own fashion. Many of the people here 6aw what was j coming, and thus an association was I

formed, comprising both natives aud ! whites, wliich endeavoured to remedy matters and to put the Island industries on a sound basis. Had the administration heeded the suggestions put forward by this body the present situation would "have been averted. "We cannot hope for lasting improvement until this question of local government has been settled in accordance with the wishes of the people. I The Europeans d 6 not want to get i representation on the local council in I order to control tbe affairs of the Island, us one of your correspondents (E.Moore) states. What they do want to do is to see that the Island is properly run and in the true interests of the population. With regard to the annual reports issued by the administration it is perhaps as well to say that it is extremely difficult to get hold of a copy of them, and the same applies to the laws which are brought into operation from time to ' time. These only appear in the New ! Zealand "Gazette," and not in the Cook I Intends "Gazette," as formerly. Since [ 1016. when the C.I.P.A. criticised tbe ! annual report of the administration— I which criticism was largely suppressed by the New Zealand censor—these Star Chamber methods have become more pronounced, and it is praeiically impossible to obtain copies of these documents. 1 am, etc., W. G. TAYLOR, Planter. EXCESSIVE LAND VALUES. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Referring to your article re excessive land values in Tuesday's issue, the excess profits tax killed this atone dead while it was in operation. Why it was repealed only politicians know. It was a popular conscription of wealth, and any hardship could have been adjusted, as was the case with conscription of life. The other man's was the life, property is sacred. You publish a case which is deemed very profitable at .£7."> per acre. This 500 acres carries 250 cows, and returns £5000 a year. The interest bill on this is .C 2250 at 0 per cent. Share milkers at one-third would get £ 1000, leaving the owner £1000 to pay rates, graduated tax, insurances, cost of herd, and depreciation and losses, winter feeding, and probably summer feeding and manure. The return of £20 per cow is about 401b fat above the average, and at 2/ returns no milk for calves or pigs. To keep land at a low value is a difficult and complex problem. High values tend to increase production, which is good. But unfortunately it is generally at the expense of the former, his wife and family, especially the wife nnd family.—l am, etc., FARMER.