LOCAL FRUIT MARKET

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 45, 23 February 1939, Page 16

LOCAL FRUIT MARKET

SUBSIDY WITHHELD

GROWERS RECEIVE "RUDE SHOCK"

• An announcement made by the MinisieV of Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash) towards the end of last month that the Government would not renew the local market subsidy for fruit during the coming season has, in the words of Se "Orchardist," the official organ of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers' FederaIdon and the Export Control Board, come as "a rude shock" to the mdusNash's announcement was made at a deputation received by him on January 25 from the Fruitgrowers' Industrial Union of Employers and the New Zealand Workers' Union. The deputation asked that Mr. Nash should Snake known the amount of support Svhich the Government would make available to the industry, as on this depended the amount of wages that the industry could be expected to pay. According to a report in the "Orchaidist" Mr Nash advised the combined deputation that the export guarantee -would be continued on substantially the same basis as last year, and he indicated that the guarantee would be approximately the same amount, although this could not be taken as absolutely final as yet. So far as the local market was concerned, Mr. Nash was sorry to say that the Government could not see its way to continuing toe subsidy on the same basis as last year. He stated that the subsidy had been made available on fruit of certain quality as laid down in the regulations, and many growers had beaten the Government by placing on _ the market fruit of a lower quality than the regulations demanded, and had applied for the subsidy and were receiving it. He had been very disappointed in the failure of many growers to co-operate with the Government by placing on the market fruit of the required quality and under these conditions, in fairness to the Government, was not prepared to recommend a continuation of the subsidy on the local ■■BX MretNash stated that this opinion was based on information he had received from friends and supporters in the various districts many of whom were fruit growers. He also stated that he had personally se"en fruit in the Christchurch market marked extra fancy," for which he would not be prepared to give?2s 6d a case. He summed the position up by stating that the Government had been exploded, and badly exploited, by the growers, and that until some procedure had been developed which would provide sufficient safeguard to prevent unfair packing and marketing by growers, the Government would not now renew the local market subsidy. ONLY A FEW GUILTY. Commenting editorially on the Government's attitude, the "Orchardist states:—"lt cannot, of course, be denied that a certain amount of fruit has been placed on the market in a manner which reflected little credit on the grower, and in a manner prejudicial to the price obtained by the bulk of the fruit on the market. Growers must admit that and they deplore it as much as Mr. Nash does. However, to make this fact the grounds for the withdrawal of a subsidy to the whole industry is as much as to imply that, in the Minister's opinion, if not a majority, at least a substantial proportion, of the growers on the local market are indulging in dishonest practices. Mr. Nash, howeyer, states that he fully realises that it is only a small number of growers who are guilty, and we feel sure that this opinion would be confirmed if he referred to the officers of the Horticultural Division, whose duty it has been to inspect local market fruit rather than to anonymous 'friends and supporters' who have written to him protesting against the quality of fruit placed on the markfet. Even the single consignment of poor class fruit marked 'Extra Fancy' which Mr. Nash personally saw on the Christchurch market is not sufficient evidence upon which to penalise a whole industry, nor has it been proved that even in this instance the grower was the defaulting party. "We would like to remind Mr. Nash that the committee of investigation recommended that all fruit below a certain standard < should be prohibited from the market for sale for human consumption. This recommendation was supported almost unanimously by the industry. The Government, however, refused to put that into effect, stating that no fruit reasonably fit for human consumption was to be kept off the market. To that extent the responsibility for the fruit of which he complains rests with the Government. Another point is the fact that the growers selling fruit on the local market paid a levy of Id per case, and paid it willingly, to be protected against unfair, packing and to ensure that the grades were maintained. The inspection work was carried out by a largely augmented Horticultural Division fruitinspection staff, a body of men in whom ! the industry has every confidence from the point of view of integrity and experience. ,If Mr. Nash had supported.! his contention that a significant proportion of our fruit had been unfairly packed by, reports emanating from this Department it would have been serious enough, but the making of such charges, apparently without reference to the Horticulture Division, implied a slight on the personnel of that Division which should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. "It was only after many years of persistent effort on the part of fruit growers that the Government was prevailed upon to bring into operation the compulsory standardisation of fruit for local markets. It was recognised by fruit traders, Departmental officers and fruit growers that compulsory standardisation was a major effort which would take two, perhaps three, seasons to get into satisfactory running order. The success of the first season has exceeded the expectations of traders and growers, and the trade is loud in its praise of the improvement achieved. Credit for this is due to the enthusiasm and untiring efforts of the officers of the Horticulture Division. We feel that the Minister is not conversant with the difficulties which had to be overcome; that his condemnation because the two or three years' programme was not perfected within one season is a most unfair condemnation of Departmental officers, and that his penalisation of the growers is alto-, gether unreasonable. The growers pressed for standardisation; the growers asked-for the elimination of 'minimum grade' from fresh fruit market channels; the Government refused to exclude 'minimum grade' from the market, and now the Minister condemns the Department and the growers because a two years' scheme was not! completed within one. | "The growers have now, however, suggested that Mr. Nash make available the subsidy only on such fruit as has been' inspected and passed by fruit inspectors before being placed on the \ market. As this scheme seems to us quite practicable and should overcome Mr. Nash's fears, we hope it will be seriously .considered." j