The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1934. AUSTRALIAN ORANGES.

Evening Star, Issue 21822, 11 September 1934, Page 8

The Evening Star TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1934. AUSTRALIAN ORANGES.

The office of Australian Trade Commissioner to New Zealand is a new one, and it is to be hoped it will pave the way towards a resumption of trading relations between the two countries on a basis more befitting two neigbouring parts of the same Empire than has been observable for some years. Soon after his arrival from Australia to fill his new office Mr R. H. Nesbitt was entertained at luncheon by the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, and in the course of his reply he said; “Of the fresh fruit I have seen in New Zealand shops I will not say anything just yet, j except to .say that I have been s'caggered at the prices marked on them in shop windows. Oranges can be bought in Australia at almost onetenth of the price paid here. I am going to look into the matter very closely.” Australian oranges have been greatly in the public eye lately because of the imposition of an embargo on their importation soon after the public had begun to appreciate supplies from that source and the repeated efforts made to have it lifted, which recently have been in some degree successful Mr Nesbitt’s statement was cabled to Australia, and it elicited from the secretary of the Murray Citrus Growers' Co-op. Association the reply that the Australian oranges were not being marketed in New Zealand at excessive prices. Presumably he (Mr Under : wood) could ouly speak of the returns to members of his association, the growers. The prices of which Dir Nesbitt complained were those charged to the consuming public. There is an extraordinarily wide gap between them. The Murray Citrus Fruit Growers’ Co-op. Association has a representative in New Zealand, Mr C. Mueller, who has spent no inconsiderable part of his time in the dominion during the last few years in connection with the distribution of such shipments as have been allowed entry. It happened that the same day as Mr Nesbitt spoke in Wellington Mr Mueller was interviewed by an Invercargill pressman. Mr Mueller stated that he had heard that his presence in New Zealand had been questioned, and he explained that there was nothing sinister in an organisation having its market representative watching its interests in all markets. “ We aim at a fair deal all round, and if I consider a client has been badly treated 1 am on the spot to adjust the c^fference,’- he said. “ This is no relief

tion on your merchants, many of whom are just as eager as I am that satisfied clients should be the order of the day. I have been criticised for being appointed to allocate quantities to the various centres. Somebody had to do it under the quota fixed, by the New Zealand Government, otherwise one port would have been swamped and one would have been without.” From this it may be judged that the retail price of oranges had become rather a live question in Invercargill. It was deemed worthy of ventilation by the Invercargill Chamber of Commerce, which, at the request of the local Retail Fruiterers’ Association, had bestirred itself towards getting the embargo lifted. That having been done and supplies having arrived, Mr C. B. Tapley, president of the Chamber of Commerce, drew attention through the Press to the fact that oranges were no cheaper than formerly, though the Retail Fruiterers’ Association had assured him that their earlier approach to the Chamber had not been dictated by self-interest. Mr Tapley said that from what he could gather the average prices charged were at least 75 per cent, above cost, even allowing for loss through deterioration in transit. “Assuming,” he - continued, “that from a case containing 240 oranges the fruit is retailed at six for Is, there is 17s profit on a case which cost only 23s for growing, picking, packing, railage, shipping, and handling charges. On the face of it the retailers’ profit seems too great. I hope a satisfactory explanation is forthcoming—or that the price to consumers is reduced.” Mr Tapley received his explanation yesterday when he attended (by invitation) a special meeting of the Invercargill Retail Fruiterers’ Association. He was told that the fruiterers were “the victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that the loss through bad fruit was estimated at 30 per cent.” As to the latter part of the explanation, such a loss is altogether at variance with any reports we have heard concerning any of these shipments. Mr Tapley, however, professed himself surprised at the high ullages and satisfied with the explanation. He is reported to have said also that the export of South Australian oranges was in the hands of a monopoly which caused. high prices here, that a monopoly was at work, and that it should be pointed out to the Government what a serious matter it was for the dominion. “ The position needs clarifying,” declared Mr Tapley. It does indeed. But his remarks concerning the monopoly do not help to clarify the position, for they are decidedly ambiguous. On which side of the Tasman Sea is the monopoly? Wo appreciate Mr Tapley’s position as the solitary guest at such a gathering, but we do hope the Invercargill Chamber of Commerce will not let the matter remain where it is. The Canterbury Chamber of Commerce is moving in .the matter, having recently discussed what one member described as the “ utter absurdity of such exorbitant prices having to be paid for fruit grown almost at our door,” and decided to refer the matter to'its Produce Committee with power to act. Nor do we see any reason why the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce should not investigate the same subject. It had been our intention to refrain from mentioning this matter at this stage for fear lest publicity should lead to a reimpositiou of the embargo before matters could be rectified. But now that publicity has sprung up both north and south of us we consider it no breach )f confidence to state that since the resumption of shipments there has been in Invercargill, Dunedin, and Christchurch a degree of apparent profiteering calling for investigation. Measures to prevent it had been taken in advance. It was known that restricted supplies were coming to a market previously starved of them by Government decree, and that the field looked a promising one for the practice. Recognising some responsibility for the situation, the Government department concerned approved of the efforts of the South Australian Growers’ representative to see that the consuming public were not vercharged. This trade, if allowed U> develop, is only in its infancy; and the most adverse influence possible would be to choke the public off thus early with impossible prices. Therefore it would be the reverse of gratifying to the growers’ representative if middlemen could step in and rake off profits greater per case than those the growers will receive. That is what is alleged to have happened in our three southern cities, and it is worth investigation by the three chambers of commerce. Points on which those bodies might satisfy themselves are whether the contemplated manner of disposal of tho shipments necessitated the intervention of such middlemen, what useful service they performed, what risks they ran; also whether the Australian law or practice, making a clear distinction between a merchant and an agent—the firm or individual having to declare himself either the one or the other—is worthy of adoption here. Oranges may seem a trivial matter to discuss at such length, but exploitation is a very big subject, especially when purchasing power is low and it is not confined to oranges.