JAM INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 144, 21 June 1933, Page 10

JAM INDUSTRY

NEED FOR PROTECTION AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TARIFF REQUESTS A joint case on behalf of three firms representing,the jam-making and fruitcanning industry, Thompson and Hills, Ltd., S. Kirkpatrick and Co., Ltd., and Irvine and Stevenson's (St. George Co., Ltd.), was presented today to the Tariff Commission. The Comptroller of Customs, Dr. G. Craig, presided and associated with him were Professor B. E. Murphy, and Messrs. J. B. Gow and G. A. Pascoe. , . The secretary of the" New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, Mr. A. E. Mander, said that the three firms were responsible for 90 per cent, of the jam and canned fruit output in New Zealand. The present tariff on jam, jellies, marmalade, and preserves was 2d per lb British, 2Jd Australia, and 5d general, and they sought an increase to 3d on all parts of the Empire except the United Kingdom. On fruits preserved in juice or syrup: the present tariff was 25 per cent. British, and 50 per cent.-general, and they, asked for the raising of the tariff against Australia to 35 per cent. On fruit pulp the present tariff was ljd per lb British and. 1-Jd-per lb general, and they asked for lid per lb United Kingdom, 2d.per lb Australia,* and 2Jd per lb general. The industry used; almost entirely New Zealand materials, and was especially suitable to the Dominion. There were 62G4 registered orchards in New Zealand and the fruit growers last year sold over £72,000. worth of fruit to the jam-making and .canning, factories. The value of the capital in the industry was £204^,777. There, were 228 males and 213 females employed' in 'the industry, receiving wages amounting to £59,074. .Tic total output in 1932 was, valued'at, £305,308.. WAGES AND COSTS. The average, actual weekly • earnings for employees in large firms'in-the United' Kingdom was' 35s sd, while that for those engaged by smaller firms was 34s srl. In New Zealand the average was 59s lOd. In Great Britain the ruling price for sugar .was £17 to £.18 per ton, as compared with £25 to £26 per ton in New Zealand. Land, building, and the cost of finance were also considerably more expensive in New Zealand. In Australia the grower had been heavily subsidised by the: public funds, and the States had made costly experiments in establishing State canneries. Land suitable for fruit growing in Australia was available at £15 an acre, as compared with £70 in New Zealand. ." , x Professor Murphy: Do you say that the price of land is a factor in the eostsf '■■."■' Mr. Mander: Yes. Professor' Murphy: Then you are wrong. It is not the cost of. land which raises the price; it is the price which raises the cost of land. Mr. Mander said that the land could be used, for alternative purposes. Professor Murphy agreed that if the land was worth £70 per acre for alternative purposes, then it. would be a factor in costs. ' , Mr. Mander said. that, without. tariff protection 'it would. be impossible for fruit canners to . compete with imports. The extinction ;of the industry in New Zealand would certainly result in disastrous consequences, not only-to the 1200 or more workers and their dependants engaged in this particular industry, but also to n large proportion, of the 10,000 or more persons engaged in fruit growing. AUSTRALIAN STATE-AID. ' . Mr. Charles ~MUne.r, managing. director of S. Kirkpatrick and Co., Ltd., said that America with its hugo mass production and its large home trade in a highly protected market was able to sell its surplus overseas at low prices. South Africa with its cheaper' labour, cheap fruit and sujair, and low freight to New Zealand, and Australia with its subsidised and bounty-fed industry ; and a highly protected home market would , continue dumping canned fruits into New Zealand unless the duty was made prohibitive. The witness quoted | a letter written to his firm by Mr. L. B. Foster, of Motueka, who had had considerable fruit-growing experience in Austraia. He had stated that the Fedoral Government had ■ spent huge sums on export bounties, pools, writing off of'land settlement, etc. Mr: Foster had said that New Zealand was under a disadvantage as regards climate. Australia, with its inland valleys, had an almost ideal climate /for stone fruits, especially peaches. Furthermore the number- of : sprayings in Australia was less. . • ■•, ■• . Professor Murphy: .It, would appear that New Zealand was not. suitable for growing peaches. If this' country is not suitaplo for growing peaches, would it not ■be better, to concentrate on those fruits' for which the country is adapted? With V tariff of 500 per cent., you could grow, bananas in Stewart Island., , . < Mr.-Milner said that the standard of New Zealand peaches was improving. The growers were gaining experience and it was hoped to be able to grow peaches equal to the Australian product. This was borne .'out by Mr. Foster, who was confident that it was possible to produce a first-class canning peach in New Zealand, quite equal to any he had seen cither in Australia or the United States. ALLIED INDUSTRIES. Mr. Frank Minton Hills said that .the jam and canning industry gave a stimulus to such industries as timbermilling, box and carton making, sugar refining, coal mining, transport, etc., and if the future of .their firms was jeopardised there would bo an increase in the number of the unemployed^ If they invited England to injure New Zealand's orchardists and industrial workers, they would be damaged not for the benefit of England' alone, but for the benefit also of the. army of foreign growers who' supplied England -with oranges,. lemons, and great quantities of, fruit-pulps. How much Scotch orange was there in Scotch marmalade? Professor Murphy: I have heard there were some turnips. Mr. Hills: I don't think,so. He said that it was better for the Dominion to build up its own industries, provided the protection was not too high, and ho thought the requests they were making wore most reasonable. ■ ■ • - ■ > ■ ;