SALE OF STONE FRUIT

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23413, 21 August 1941, Page 6

SALE OF STONE FRUIT

GROWERS’ PETITION TO

HOUSE

FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION

RECOMMENDED

(P.R.) WELLINGTON, August 20. Most favourable consideration of a petition from C. E. Pope and 44 other growers in Canterbury, praying that certain sections of the New Zealand Stone Fruit Regulations, 1940, relating to the grading, size, packing, inspection and sale of stone fruit be revoked, was recommended to the Government by the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee of the House to-day. Although it had no recommendation to make on the petition of B. T. Turner and 104 others, asking for a revision of the terms of the fruit purchase scheme as applied to Canterbury orchardists, the committee recommended the Government to set up a local advisory committee of Canterbury orchardists to aci in co-operation with the Internal Marketing Department. This recommendation was made in view of evidence submitted of the cordial relations existing between growers and the department in Canterbury. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) said he was pleased that the committee had seen fit to bring down its recommendation on the stone fruit regulations, and he hoped the Government would give it full consideration. He believed that the Minister for Agriculture (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) was sympathetic, but his feeling was that the Minister did not realise just how serious the regulations were to fruitgrowers. The bulk of the stone fruit in Otago had to be handled at a time when conditions were very hot and unfavourable, and the fruit ripened very rapidly. Ail labour was now working under awards, and growers had to carry bn harvesting at high pressure with such. experienced labour as they were able to .provide normally during the year. The Minister knew that it was impossible to harvest and grade fruit under those conditions. The most that could be done was to put the fruit over the grader, and grade to size only. If he investigated, the Minister would find that growers were anxious to co-oper-ate. .

' Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccartdn) said that evidence brought before the committee showed overwhelmingly that it was impossible to fix standards for stone fruit growers In this country. Growers in Christchurch had a special standard, and Were able to keep their fruit till within 24 hours of its being ripe, and fruit retailers were willing to buy their standardised fruit. Otago growers had * come before the committee and said - that although the fruit looked good one night, it was unsaleable the next morning. The weight of evidence was that departmental officers were not co-operating with growers as they should have done, and advisory councils would be of assistance. Mr T. H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton) said he would not like; the House to think that the committee was of opinion that there was no need for the standardisation of fruit Certain standards were desirable. The ' regulations were now in process of review, and because of that and also because the Minister had indicated that the , regulations would not be made compulsory, but only a guide for a Considerable time, the committee recommended the petition for most favourable consideration. An interesting fact was that all who gave evidence against standardisation graded their own fruit. One of the objections those growers had to the Government's grading scheme was that it would make less (efficient growers also grade their fruit, and that the public would get,larger quantities of first Sade fruit From the point of view the public, some measure of standardisation was desirable. ■;> Answering Mr Kyle; Mr B. Roberts, chairman ,of ;the committee, said the evidence was that the department was doMg all it could to co-operate. The committee brought in its findings beN cause of War conditions, and so that the regulations would not work arbitrarily at present. ,