MARKETING OF FRUIT

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 143, 13 December 1935, Page 9

MARKETING OF FRUIT

SINGLE BROKER AGENCY

GROWERS DISSATISFIED

PETITION AND INQUIRY

Special to the "Evening Post.")

.NELSON, December 12.

The Executive Commission of Agriculture has commenced the hearing of a;petition by a number of Nelson and Hawke's Bay fruitgrowers for an investigation of the Fruit Control Board's system, of marketing in the United Kingdom, especially the system in the provinces by a single broker agency. The petitioners request a return «j a panel of brokers. The sole brokers are Goodwin and Simon. The . commission comprises Sir Francis Frazer and Messrs. D. Jones and G. A; Duncan. Advocates for the petitioners are Messrs. J. L. Brown and A. Fbrsyth, and for the Control Board Messrs. H. E. Stephens (chairman of the board) and W. Benzies (secretary). Tlie keen interest which is being taken in the inquiry was shown by the large attendance of growers from all parts of the.district. The chairman explained that the sitting of the commission was to hear a petition by a number of Nelson fruitgrowers for an investigation ol the Fruit Board's system of marketing, and especially the system of marketing New Zealand fruit in the English provinces by a single broker agency. The board was requested to return to a .panel of brokers. A similar petition had been.received from Hawke's Bay, and would be heard at the same time. THE COMMISSION'S TASK. It was general when aboard was set .up; by. an industry and was charged \vith. the special duty of marketing, and when the producers elected all or a considerable part of the board, ihat the industry should accept its policy, but in some cases a section of..the producers in such industry became opposed to the policy of the board, said Sir Francis Frazer. It was theii for the Executive Commission of Agriculture to hear evidence arid give an impartial decision. The board, he assured all parties, would give a .detached and impartial hearing and decision.. The present case had been mentioned to the Minister of Agriculture, the. Hon. W. Lee Martin, who had expressed the hope that the inquiry would have the result.of doing away writh any differences of opinion that now existed, and ■ that ; the finding would be accepted without demur. ' Both ,the Minister and the commission. desired a full inquiry. It was obvious that the: dispute was on differences of opinion, and the hope was expressed that a statement of opinions would.be supported by facts.- He realised there would be opinions diametrically opposed, and the commission knew -that a certain amount of personal feeling had arisen, but it was hoped that 'each side would see the other's point of view, and that personal feelings would bedropped. As a result:6f j full discussion one side or the oth'ejpihight see'which; side was cor-. r ecti^and^ in ;^e ibestsinterestSi of theindu'stry. He 'invited such expression, if that'was possible/ It was a big.and. important industry. . This year there was promise-of a. large crop.'so; it was all the more necessary to have the best marketing policy possible in the in-, terests of the industry. ; EVIDENCE FOR PETITIONERS. Mr. Brown said that in addition to being chief advocate for the petition-. ers'.'ini Nelson he also acted in a similar capacity for: the Hawke's Bay petitioners. Though the petitions referred only to policy in regard to brokers it was intended to introduce matters of general policy in regard to overseas marketing, such as pooling, nomination of brokers by individual growers, and ,the Government guarantee. The only statement made by the board on the- matter ..of present'policy was what he'described as "a sack full of figures" issued by the board about a month ago; The case was based entirely on dissatisfaction among growers, that dissatisfaction' being;sincere and deeprooted. .It was not", just a matter of policy'of ;the-1935 or 1936 season. At the end of 1932 the growers were trapped into- a marketing' policy which they did hot. understand. The petition was supported by-: 185 Nelson growers and'l6o Hawke's Bay, exporters. The, evidence would : show :that growers were, not opposed to control but were-dissatisfied with the present policy, which, in'their opinion, required amending as suggested in the .petition. ; '■ •■■ ■ ■ ■ . • Donald McLean (Hawke's Bay) said that the present unrest developed after the first year of single .agency when "the growers -: were wrecked on the Goodwin sands,." The: growers in-his district considered that- a full panel would result in better marketing. They were willing to concede ;the board power to divert supplies. . Joseph Stewart (Nelson) alleged that the board was now New Zealand agent for Goodwin's and that the single broker scheme was the first step in a campaign by the Spitalflelds Markets against Covent Garden. All the witnesses for the petitioners expressed the opinion that the full panel system ■ resulted in better ' returns to growers.-It is' estimated that the sitting will ( continue until Saturday afternoon. " ■ ■ •'