PLAN REJECTED

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 4, 6 January 1944, Page 6

PLAN REJECTED

PIP FRUIT CROPS

ORCHARDISTS DISSATISFIED

Tentative Government proposals for the marketing of this year's pip fruit crop were unanimously rejected by a meeting of orchardists held in the Lewis Eady Hall to-day. About 90 growers were present from all parts of the province. Ihe meeting was called by the Internal Marketing Division for the purpose of explaining the Government's proposals.

Orchardists expressed dissatisfaction with the Government handling of the industry, and statements were made that if something were not done to give the growers a greater return for their labour there would be fewer orchardists growing apples and pears next season. The following is the full text of a resolution carried unanimously, moved by Mr. A. F. Little (Hendeison) and seconded by Mr. G. Hall (Hamilton): —

"After having heard the Government proposals for marketing pip fruits as outlined, this meeting rejects the scheme in toto and cannot consider nominations for committees until a scheme acceptable to the industry is put forward; we request that the Prime Minister immediately reopen negotiations with the riuit Growers' Federation directors, who are and always have been, the recognised mouthpiece of the lruit industry." Stabilisation Squashed After the Government's proposals had been explained by officers of the Internal Marketing Division, Mr A. B. Cogdon (Albany), a director of the New Zealand Fruit Growers Federation, gave a brief history of what the federation had done for the powers from the time the export of apples had to be abandoned owing to war conditions. The growers had not been given increased incomes. Any increase in payments had only coincided' with increased costs. The Gov ernment had introduced stabilisation control and the growers asked tne Price Investigation Tribunal to go intn the cost of production. The growers were only asking for the Irice ofprecluction-a price to mam tain their orchards — a proper standard. The Government had not permitted the tribunal to go into tne nroblem but finally an increase of 9d was given. That in itself squashed the idea that nothing could be a l under stabilisation. Su ?^ to been stretched also m respect urnffpo in the industry. . . Wlien a recent deputation from the federation had waited on the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, to see what the Government had clone in respect to a promised committee of investigation, the Minister had asked the reason for the deputation. A Voice: Treated you like brainless kids!

Feeling of Defeatism Mr Congdon said Mr. Nash had stated tha tt.here was no report, from any special committee. He c °u'd not understand that after the promise that had been made It was on account of the Minister s attitude that the federation had withdrawn from the negotiations. The directors had a feeling of defeatism. A letter was subseqently sent to the internal Marketing Division stating that the federation could not cooperate with the Government until the report of the special committee was obtained. That was not bolting the door," which was a charge made against the federation. The federation for years had worked in harmony with the Internal Marketing Division. He was doubtful whether the new Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Roberts, had ever been given a true picture of the work done "by the fruit advisory, board, and he held that the federation should have been called in by the fruit advisory board and asked to co-operate. No Guaranteed Price Mr. Congdon said it had been stated that the proposed scheme had been likened to the old export control board. He could not endorse that. He could not see that the growers were to get a guaranteed price. The officers of the Department had said there would be sufficient money with the subsidy of £169,000 to guarantee growers 6/ a case. It was only supposition. The increase of wages would amount to £35,000. A proposal that 5 per cent of market returns should be set aside as a fund to be utilised for practical assistance towards bringing uneconomic orchards on to an economic basis would make further inroads into the subsidy. "We want the cost of production," he added, "and I say stabilisation can be stretched to give us that as it was stretched before." Uneconomic orchards existed because of the insufficient price paid for the produce, he declared. Under the new scheme some growers would be better off, but those who were down would be further down and would face bankruptcy. All the growers in the district—and he had attended many meetings—were of the same opinion, that the Government's proposals were not acceptable.

Government As Partner The chairman, Mr. A. H. Honeyfield (manager of the Auckland branch of the Internal Marketing Division) 1 , said the growers were bound to work within the framework of stabilisation. The prices they had enjoyed during the last few years would be the prices under the new scheme. There would be certain savings under the proposed arrangements which would go to the growers. He could not see any reason why something in the nature of a guaranteed price could not be adopted for the industry. The plan was a tentative one, the Government being tied in as a partner. After further discussion the resolution quoted was carried, and a further motion was adopted stating that, in any future communications with the Government regarding the price of pip fruit, the clause in the Government's scheme giving 5 per cent of the market returns to uneconomic orchards be eliminated.

It was further decided to telegraph the resolutions to the Prime Minister.