Mr Rowling tries to stop fruit levy

Press, 9 August 1980, Page 2

Mr Rowling tries to stop fruit levy

PA Wellington The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) tried unsuccessfully in Parliament yesterday to get the apple and pear industry levy aboI lished. He moved to have the report of the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee on the Apple and Pear Marketing Amendment Bill referred back to the committee so it could consider abolishing the levy. His amendment was defeated.

Mr Rowling, whose I Tasman electorate includes many orchards, said the levy' in its present form was i unacceptable to growers. He] was concerned that the com-; irpittee had accepted the view of departmental officers rather than the overwhelming view of growers. The bill. provides that the Apple and Pear Prices Authority is no longer required | to consider the state of the] industry generally in fixing] the levy rate, and that use' of the levy is to be restrict-■ ed to financing apple and] ipear processing and the re-] ’duction of deficits in the re-| serve account. ; i It also provides that no| I levy .be collected for the' . 1979-80 season. i The bill extends • from' 150 km to 65km the distance' i beyond which orchardists are not allowed to deliver; apples or pears sold directly] to a consumer.

i Mr L. Schultz (Nat.,i •’Hauraki), chairman of the; (select,.committee, said evi(dence was given to it sup-] porting the removal of the levy but the ■ committee, did not feel’it was a matter that! should be dealt with- in the! amending bill. | The committee’s report! was unanimous, he said. But Mr Rowling said he i was not on the committee, land represented many fruitgrowers. I “I am concerned that the committee made a wrong de- : I cision and I want to give it i lthe opportunity to rectify] .the mistake,” he said. i The Apple and Pear Board jhad made substantial profits! land he thought it would’ concede that the money coming from the levy was something of an embarrassment. The Under-Secretary of Agriculture (Mr Talbot) said Mr Rowling should have i spoken to the Labour! members of the committee! I who had agreed to the: report. i Proposals for a price-] (smoothing scheme were] i being considered by the] I fruitgrowing industry, Mr I | Talbot said. ; I It had been unanimously] 'agreed that the levy should] be left in case the board’s] marketing position deterio-. 'rated, although this was un-j likely. . • ! i The levy was not doing ]any harm and would not be. collected for this season.]

Mr Talbot said he had no doubt the levy would be removed when the new price proposals were considered by the Government. He criticised Mr Rowling’s move when the committee had been unanimous. Labour’s agriculture spokesman, Sir Basil Arthur, a member of the committee, supported Mr Rowling’s move to send the bill, back to the committee. Mr Talbot, he said, had put far too much emphasis on the fact that the committee had been unanimous. Sir Basil said he had expressed strong reservations in the committee about the levy and had warned it 'was

likely to be contested in the House. Evidence was firmly in favour of abolishing the levy which growers had reluctantly agreed to when it was introduced in 1977. There had been no point in making an issue of the levy clause in the committee when Government members outnumbered the Opposition, Sir Basil said. Labour members had agreed to the committee’s report in a spirit of co-operation, but they would not co-operate in future if Government members wanted to make an issue of it. Mr W. R. Peters (Nat., Hunua) said Mr Rowling’s move to refer the bill back to the committee was unprecedented. “He has sought to embarrass his colleagues into submission.”