FRUIT MARKETING

Grey River Argus, 17 December 1940, Page 10

FRUIT MARKETING

Canterbury Proposals CHRISTCHURCH, December 16. An amelioration of conditions under the marketing regulations for Canterbury fruitgrowers has been promised by the Minister for Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash), according to Mr C. H. Clibborn, acting-secretary of the Canterbury Progress League, who represented the league on the deputation to the Minister last week. Major subjects of complaint will be investigated. The deputation, introduced by the Mayor (Mr . M. Macfarlane, M.P.), and including Messrs N. Goldsbury (spokesman for the growers) B. T. Turner, and H. R. Sampson, asked for lire abandonment of the marketing scheme for apples and pears, or, alternatively, relief for Canterbury growers on those clauses discussed in the conference in Christchurch last week.

Though the Minister was opposed to the abandonment of the scheme, Mr Clibborn said yesterday, he gave the deputation a sympathetic hearing and said that he would be glad to fall in with any proposals within the framework of the national marketing scheme which would make for better co-operation between the department and the producer and consumer.

Members of the deputation, Mr Clibborn said, had later been told that the Minister ’had instructed that Canterbury was to be given every possible concession to meet the points complained of, particularly regarding depot arrangements, the marketing of fruit, and facilities for the direct sale of’produce to the consumer. Mi’ Nash he said, had expressed appreciation at being informed at first hand of major difficulties under which Canterbury growers were operating. He agreed to have immediate investigations made on the complaint that transport and operating costs under the scherhe had had the effect of reducing the price which the department was able to pay to the producer, but that the consumer had been affected by having to pay more.

The Minister had agreed further to go carefully into the question of allowing Canterbury to market apples direct, Mr Clibborn said. He had agreed to examine the questions of facilities for storage at the growers’ orchards, and to examine and obtain a report on the fairness of prices for size groups.

“He accepted as reasonable the evidence put forward that package requirements were too elaborate and too costly for local market needs. While reserving the point that the marketing scheme be preserved, he agreed to take a more sympathetic attitude towards direct selling to the consumer—where growers have hitherto been prohibited by the regulations. In general, he has agreed to 'have his officers report on, with a view to improvement, transport, e uepot, redistribution, and packing.’, problems.”