Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FRUIT MARKETING

CANTERBURY OBJECTION. [Per Press Association] WELLINGTON, March 16. The abandonment of the apple and pear marketing scheme in Canterbury■. or relief to growers to protect them “from the injustices and absurdities of the present scheme,” was sought in a petition by Bernard Thomas Turner, of Wooiston, an orchardist, and 104 others, in a petition presented by the Rt. Hon G. W. Forbes to the House of Representatives to-day. Fourteen groups of objection to the scheme were set out. The petitioners submitted that section 16 of the Fruit Control Act, requiring a poll of growers in a provincial district before Government control of fruit marketing was introduced. had not been observed. They also stated that neither the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation, Ltd., nor the New Zealand Fruit Export Control Board had been set up for carrying out Negotiations with the Government for the acquisition of apple and pear crops, and that the action of the directors of the federation and the board was contrary to the expressed wish of Canterbury growers. Another clause claimed that the 1 purchase price was below the cost of production. The type of package required was also held to be too costly and elaborate fo r local market requirements. The growers further submitted that under the present system fruit had at times to be sold cheaply at P loss to the Government, the loss being a charge on the balance of fruit, or on the Consolidated Fund, and that they had been deprived of a preferential price for flavour and keeping qualities. The petition continued that a supply of fully matured fruit, mellowed by orchard storage, was preferable to packing fruit immediately after picking and holding in storage. The organisation of the Internal Marketing Department to handle the marketing of fruit had introduced additional and unnecessary expense, while cartage for many unnecessary miles involved wastage of time and labour.” “The continuation of the present scheme will cause the deterioration and abandonment of many Canterbury orchardists,” the petition concludes.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19410318.2.77

Bibliographic details

Grey River Argus, 18 March 1941, Page 10

Word Count
334

FRUIT MARKETING Grey River Argus, 18 March 1941, Page 10

FRUIT MARKETING Grey River Argus, 18 March 1941, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert