Fruit Industry

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 96, 19 January 1944, Page 4

Fruit Industry

Sir, —Two alterations have been made in the recently-rejected fruit-marketing scheme, and fruitgrowers are to be asked to reconsider the matter in the light of those changes. As the position is understood here, a guaranteed price of 6/- a case of apples or pears is now offered, less 5 per cent., and the right is given to the orchardists to elect members to the National Advisory Council by postal ballot, instead of the Minister having the final selection. ' All the other distasteful features of the Government’s proposals remain as they 'were when rejected by the industry. Last year, because of the stabilization policy, the Government could not give us 6/-, but offered us 5/3 plus 9d. added costs. With an inconsistency that seems remarkable even in politicians we were shown less than a fortnight ago that under the scheme then rejected but now /apparently resusitated we could steer dear of the stabilization policy and get anything from 6/5J upward per case. Now we are being offered a guarantee of 6/-, less 5 per cent., but Still with this possibility of a lot more, and the wages of some of bur employees are to be increased. In other words, “stabilization be hanged.” All this and Heaven, too, if only we will excuse the Government from buying our fruit, and from having to give us some more “added costs.” In plain language,_for the sake of a guaranteed of' 6/-, less 5 per cent, instead of a guarantee of 5/3 plus 9d. costs, we are to allow the Government to drop us and forget all about the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange as applied to fruit, and, for anything above the 6/- less 5 per cent, we are to place our trust in that most efficient and businesslike concern, the I.M.D. About this 5 per cent: It has been described as an extra social security tax on orchardist?, but nobody knows how it would be administered. I suggest that if the tax is to be imposed the Government should give us a £1 for £1 subsidy, and that the total amount should be vested in a fund, called, say, the “Acts of God Indemnity Fund,” or the “Natural Elements Indemnity Fund,” to provide orchardists with at least some insurance against part of the losses incurred through certain disasters such as hail, ■ floods or wind. In conclusion, if the Government insists on dropping us, I suggest that we accept the guarantee of 6/- provided (1) that our National Advisory Council has supreme control over, and is responsible for. all the I.M.D.’s operations with our fruit; (2) that the proposed increase.in wages be met out of the Stabilization Account; and (3) that the 5 per cent, tax on our returns be abandoned, or. alternatively, that the Government subsidizes same £1 for fl, the money to be invested in a fund for the reduction of orchardists’ losses incurred through certain specified acts of God, compensation to be determined bv local committees cf growers and approved or otherwise by a board, of trustees consisting mainly of nroctical orchardists. —I am, etc.. F. H. REID. Hastings, January 17.