FRUIT MARKETING

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 134, 2 March 1936, Page 14

FRUIT MARKETING

Report By Commission Of Agriculture

SYSTEM OF POOLING

Charges Against Board

Not Sustained

Methods of marketing New Zealaud fruit overseas are the subject of a report by the Executive Commission of Agriculture, following the fruit-mar-keting inquiry it recently held ar Nelson at the request of a number of fruitgrowers in the Nelson and Hawke’s Bay districts. The report states that a considerable degree of opposition to the marketing policy of the New Zealand Fruit Export Control Board had grown up during the last few years, and this led to a petition, signed by 187 exporters in the Nelson district, being presented to the board in October, 1935. The wording of the petition was as follows: — “We, the undersigned, being of the opinion that the marketing policy of the Fruit Board is not in the best interests of growers, strongly urge the board to return to the full panel of brokers which operated in 1932, both in Loudon and in the provinces, including Messrs. Poupart and Monro.”

Subsequently 159 Hawke’s Bay exporters signed a petition worded in exactly the same terms as the Nelson petition. The scope of the inquiry was enlarged to cover the marketing system of the board in all its aspects. The Nelson and Hawke’s Bay petitioners were represented by Messrs.. J. L. Brown and A. Forsyth, assisted by Messrs. D. S. McLeod and J. N. Walker, and the board was represented by Messrs. H. E. Stephens and W. Benzies. Tn all. 45 witnesses were examined, and voluminous documentary evidence was submitted by the petitioners and the board. Single Agency System. The report explains that in 1933 a single-agency system was adopted for both London and the provinces, the firm appointed being Messrs. J. and 11. Goodwin. Ltd. Ileturns to growers were pooled. For the 1934 season the board, acting under pressure from a section of the growers, appointed a panel of brokers for London, in which Messrs. Geo. Monro, Ltd., and Messrs. T. J. Poupart, Ltd., were included, but retained Messrs. J. and 11. Goodwin, Ltd., as sole selling agents for the provinces. Exporters were given the right to nominate the London brokers to whom they wished their fruit to be sent, and pooling was abandoned. In 1935, nomination of brokers was discontinued, but a London panel of brokers was retained, though Messrs. Geo. Monro, Ltd., and Messrs. T. J. Poupart. Ltd,, declined to net on the panel. Pooling of 'returns was again adopted. i The extreme difficulty of obtaining an orderly distribution of fruit when there were panelo of brokers both in London and in the provinces was one of the principal reasons for the adoption of the single agency scheme in 1933. The position was that the brokers, in effect, desired to usurp the functions of the board as the distributor of the fruit. _ The commission is satisfied that it is desirable that the board should include Messrs. George Monro Ltd. and Messrs. T._ J;.Poupart Ltd. in the Loudon panel, provided that those firms agree to'accept appointment thereto on the general conditions laid down by the board for the other members of the panel.

As regards the provinces, the weight of the evidence is in favour of the retention of the single agency system during the continuance of existing conditions, for each of the provincial markets is relatively small, and the concentration of fruit in the hands of one selling agent in each centre outside of London appears to be the logical method of dealing with the available supplies. Covent Garden Brokers.

The commission does not recommend a return to the wingle agency system in London, believing that it is desirable to have a panel of Covent Garden brokers to dispose of part of the New Zealand fruit by private treaty. < The commission does not recommend the adoption of the system of nomination of brokers or the abandonment of pooling. It does, however, recommend the board to take, steps to improve the sy.stem of. pooling in cases in which faulty growing, faulty treatment or faulty packing on the part of sonic growers may prejudicially affect other growers whose fruit is in the same pool. “It was suggested that members of the board were actuated by inotilcs that were not entirely free of prejudice,” the report continues. "The commiswon regrets that personal issues were so prominent in the inquiry, but it is hopeful that the full ventilation of all matters of this nature will have dispelled any doubts that existed in the minds of some of the growers. The commission is satisfied that the board has always had in mind the one purpose and object of giving the growers the best possible service. Differences of Opinion.

"The commission recognises that in any controlled industry there must from time to time be differences of opinion among sections of producers. It would be regrettable if these differences of opinion should be so magnified as to lead Io the whole system of control being imperilled. The abandonment of control might' benefit w few growers, but it would certainly operate to the detriment of the majority. "It seems certain a great deal of the present unrest is due to the circulation of statements that are incorrect or only partly true; and in this connection the. commission feels itself bound to express its regret that United Kingdom brokers, in writing personal letters to growers, should have disparaged the board and its London manager, and by this means fostered suspicion and doubt in the minds of growers. “The board itself is not free from blame, for it has at times issued to growers statements that, though not intentionally misleading, were not prepared with due care, and contained ambiguous or incomplete information. These mistakes, which would be regarded as relatively unimportant if no atmosphere of suspicion existed, were magnified, and assumed a disproportionate importance, in the presence of an atmosphere of suspicion, and undoubtedly aided the development of friction.

“The commission must presume, .until the contrary is n-hown, that the board .io carrying on its work efficiently and iu the best interests of the.growers.” The commission was of the opinion that there was no evidence to warrant a finding suggestive of lack of faith on the part of the board, or of inefficiency or unsound, nese of judgment in the framing of ita marketing policy. The commission was satisfied that there was no foundation for the allegations of partiality made against the London manager, Mr. H. Turner.

The commission, however, found that, though the reasons for the adoption of the single agency system for London and provinces in 1933 were weighty, and though there was no reason for concluding that any loss to growers resulted from its adoption, the single agency system should not be reverted to in the case of London sales. The commission recommended, also, that the system,,of pooling be revised from time to time,'io obviate the possibility of any advantage accruing to growers whos-e methods were faulty at the expense of growers whose methods were sound.