Fruit Export Trade

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 10, 22 December 1933, Page 8

Fruit Export Trade

Wish to Discard the Board

Growers’ Petition Debated

Both Sides Presented

DECISION TO fIIEET AND CONCILIATE

A decision to meet and discuss in a conciliatory spirit the issues raised in the petition recently circulated by a group of exporting fruitgrowers was made by the petition committee and local representatives of the Control Board and the Fruitgrowers’ Federation at a largely attended meeting of orehardists in Hastings last evening. The discussion of the motives of those who have been circulating the petition, and of the board’s marketing methods both in England and in South America, were exhaustively discussed. The petition committee’s chief desire seemed to be that Goodwin’s share in the recently appointed panel of brokers should be considerably reduced, even to as much as half tiieir present allocation, and the committee accepted a proposal from the chairman, Mr. A. M. Robertson, that the forwarding of the petition shall be postponed at least until the matter is again discussed this afternoon.

It was stated at the meeting that some signatories to the petition had signed their names under a misapprehension, and Mr. Robertson and Mr. I'. King made a persistent but unsuccessful attempt to persuade Mr. J. Gordon, as one of the sponsors of the petition, to commit the petition committee to an undertaking that those who had signed but now wished to delete their names would be allowed to do so. The discussion was brought to a definite point only when Mr. King proposed a motion to the effect that the petition should be withdrawn and another prepared in its place. After the motion had been seconded, Mr. King expressed the -view that the existing petition would not be valid, and that Parliament would decline to nccept it when it became known that some growers, including himself, had not been waited upon for their signature. Mr. King ultimately consented to withdraw his motion unconditionally to allow the point at issue to be discussed at a conference. There was much debating after that snotion was moved, and it was followed by another which proposed that the first resolution should be put to the meeting. Mr. Robertson, however, appeared reluctant to put either moption to the vote while, as he expressed, there might be a chance of arriving at ■ settlement by some other means. Mr. Gordon stated to-dav that the petition committee will first meet and formulate their proposals, and then will meet the representatives of the hoard and the federation. CHAIRMAN’S OPENING. Mr A. M. Robertson, provincial representative of the board, presided •ver the n.eeting, and associated with him was Mr R. Paynter, Government fepresentative on the board. In opening the meeting, the chairman said that some of the growers were discontented that a meeting was ■ot called upon his and Mr Paynter’s return after the meeting of the Control Board. In view, however, of the many meetings held of late it was thought advisable to circularise the board’s de•ision. Upon their return the representatives noted a newspaper message to the effect that the board’s decision would not be available for spme weeks. Whence this message emanated the speaker could not say, but the board had no intention of holding back its decision, which was announced immediately upon his return. PETITION TO CUT AWAY. The reason for the present meeting was that a petition was being circulated with a view to cutting Hawke's Bay •way from the Control Board. Quite a number of growers had stated that they thought the petition meant not the doing-away with control, but merely giving the growers freedom to export as they liked. However, under the Act, said the speaker, if 70 per cent of growers signed the petition and the Minister accepted the proposals of the petition, then the Control Board would be cut out of Hawke’s Bay. “I am satisfied that this position was not tully realised,” he said, “and that a number of growers signed the petition under a misapprehension.” Another point of misunderstanding, he said, was the suggestion that the federation or the board would ship the fruit as asked to. it having been stated th-at the board had control of Otago’s output last year. ‘‘l say quite definitely that the board will not handle the fruit and that it never had control of Otago’s output last year. 1 also am of the opinion that it is high 1y improbable that the federation will handle the fruit, as it would conflict with its management of other fruit.” he continued. So far as Otago was concerned. Mr Robertson explained that the board had agreed to allow Goodwin's to handle the output from Otago as well as that of the board. It was also agreed that the board's representative, Mr Turner, control the Otago fruit in conjunction with the board s, and for his services the board was to receive Ifd a case. This sum was placed in a fund at Home for propaganda purposes. ‘‘The Board did not have control of Otago fruit. That is the point 1 wish to make clear,” he said, “as I know that many growers have been given to understand otherwise.

SHIPPING WOULD BE AFFECTED. “Those who are circulating the petition are determined to do away with the Control Board,” continued Mr Robertson, “but 1 do not think they realise what would happen in respect to shipp.ng in the event of the petition being given effect to. The board has made arrangements with the shipping companies to call at certain ports, which they would not do if there was not a big shipment. Should there be a substantial reduction in the export shipments, then it is most likely that quite a few ports now visited would be passed by and that the fruit would be landed probably at London ports only.” Mr Paynter, alluding to some points referred to by Mr Robertson, said that the Control Board had never had anything to do with Otago fruit. In reference to Mr D. S. McLeod’s letter to the “Tribune” last evening, Mr Paynter read a clause from the new shipping contract showing that where practicable fruit would be shipped from Napier In regard to the resolution passed at the lest meeting of exporters, appointing a panel of brokers, including Goodwin’s, Mr Paynter said that to a large extent the board had carried out the desire expressed in the resolution. It might be asked why Goodwill’s were given 50 per cent. It could be answered that the board had more information than that ol any individual exporter. The board had acted in the belief that it was making the wisest > provision from the exporters point of I view. It had been said in the press ' that two brokers had declined the New I Zealand offer. That statement was not I strictly true, said Mr Paynter, who ' went on to deal with the board’s attempt to induce Munro’s and- Pourpart's to reduce their selling commission. which was 6 per cent, against Goodwin’s 4 per cent. 25 PER CENT. UP ITS SLEEVE. In answer to a question, Mr Paynter said that the panel was composed of three brokers, including Goodwin's but a fourth might be used. The board had 25 per cent up its sleeve, and that 25 per cent would be distributed where the prices were best. In reference to the South American market, Mr Paynter said that the expenses on the shipments to the Argentine had not been financed by Goodwin’s, but were financed entirely by the board. Answering Mr McLeod's assertion that outside the board, Hawke’s Bay i fruit would be shipped from Napier, i Mr Paynter said that it was "'ell I known that locally there was a deter--1 urination that Hawke’s Bay fruit, wherever possible, should be shipped . from Napier. The difference in freight charges was sixpence a case, and it would not be natural to suppose that i Hawke’s Bay members of the board ■ and the federation would not fight to ' save the growers that money. Another , point mentioned in the letter referred to a loan from Goodwin's. No such ■ loan had ever been made to the board, , though in the speaker’s opinion it ’ would be an act of wisdom on the j board’s part to accept it. I Regarding the petition, the speaker I said he was surprised that some of ' those taking it round did not know ' the full purport of the petition. One j man said that it did not mean the extinguishing of the board so far as Hawke's Bay was concerned. If the petition were given effect to, then the industry in Hawke’s Bay would be set hack ten years. He contended that it was not a fair thing for anyone to take a petition round unless the full purport of the petition was understood. WISHED TO STAY ON. Mr S. Cummings said he understood I Mr Robertson to have stated that 75 | per cent, of Otago’s output last year I was under control. He was one of ' those who rook the peliiioii around, and upon learning that there was a misapprehension on this point he had again communicated with all those who had signed the petition and informed them of the fact. They all agreed to allow their names to remain on the petition. The speaker said be- bad uo time for control, but lie had do intention to do anything underhand. I he chairman said that obviously his I remarks at a previous meeting had | been misunderstood. It wa s only by i special arrangement that, the board had i anything to do with Otago's output. Mr McLeod said that everyone who had signed the petition had had the Act read to him, and he would like everyone who had signed under a misapprehension to stand up. One memIn.r of the audience stood up, and Mr McLeod said: “That settles it. Over 75 per cent signed the petition.” Mr H. Tucker, who had stood up at Mr McLeod’s request, said that the position was not actually misrepresented to him, but he had been told by a canvasser that it was emphatically not an attempt to get. rid of the Control Board. The canvasser in question had explained that at a previous meeting Mr Robertson bad said that 75 ver .■••nt of Otago's fruit. «ns under con t toi. I Mr R.ib.-rtson nuswi-rcd that if lie.

had made such a statement he had made it inadvertently. Mr J. Gordon, another canvasser, said that he had not misunderstood I the position. W hat was asked for in the petition was freedom from control. GROWER’S MISUNDERSTANDING. Mr A. Gardner said bo understood that ho could please himself "hether he shipped through the board or not. It wag upon that understanding that he signed the petition. In answer to Mr H. M. Thomson, Mr Paynter explained in detail the charges likely to be made on the South Ainciii can - shipments. He had never said ! that £40,900 or any other sum was ■ owing on the shipments. It was not known how much the sum would be. I Exchange fluctuations had been conI sidered in the matter and had been ■ provided against. Goodwin’s had said j I hat they could liquidate the money, and were prepared to “go halves’ i with the board on the expenses of get- | ting the money out. I Mr F. Semmcns: What would be the position if the board accepts a loan from Goodwin’s for the Argentine money? The chairman: There would be no obligation to the board. Mr Paynter said that Goodwin s estimated that it would cost them 15 per cent, to get the money out and that it would take about 12 months to liquidate the money. If the cost was less ; than anticipated, then they would share the difference with the board. Mr S. Holms said he knew nothing of the petition. A voice: Oh, they must know you. Continuing, Mr Holms said be thought that those sponsoring the petition were making a bad mistake. He I pointed out that the board had conI tinually to change its policy to meet | the ever-changing conditions arising out of the depression. Until there was something better to offer than control, then it was useless to make any change, he contended. IN GROWERS’ INTEREST. He went on to say that at no time had Messrs Robertson and Paynter done anything that they did not honestly think was in the general interests of the industry and of the Hawke’s Bay growers. In passing, he mentioned that he was not the author of the correspondence written by “Sherlock Holmes” in the newspaper.-. To Mr McLeod, Mr Robertson said that the amount owing by the Argentine was between £30,000 and £40,000. Of that amount, about £9OOO was owing from last year. Mr S. 11. Baker said that the board liAd steadily reduced its number of brokers until in 1932 it had only one, and it was significant that in that year the prices were the lowest. He favoured a big panel of brokers. Mr Berumens said that the meeting was going over various matters dealt, with at previous meetings. The question really to bo decided was whether, or not the petition should go forward unchanged. He asked whether it would affect this year’s output. The chairman replied that if the petition was given effect to, then it would not come into operation until August 31, 1934. Mr F. King said he considered that the board had made a wise decision, and went on to say that the promoters of the petition had shown bad judgment. Before anything of that sort, was done, exporters should have been called together and asked whether they favoured the circulation of a petition. His own firm had not been consulted, and lie thought that, the authorities should bo informed of such matters. Was the purport of the petition a pure and simple request to be allowed to break away form the board? ACT WAS READ TO THEM. Mr McLeod: All who signed the petition read the Act. Voices: No! No! It was read to them. Mr McLeod: They wanted the same privileges as Otago has. The chairman (to Mr McLeod): Did you want to get Hawke’s Bay away from the Control Board ? Air McLeod: Of course so. Every body who signed the petition read the Act and understood that Cries of “No! No!” % Mr R. V. Law said that he was satisfied that a number of the growers did not know what the consequences | would be if the petition was given i effect to. “So far this meeting has discussed a lot of things that have been discussed before,” he said, “and I think that we should stick to the one question—that regarding the petition.” (Cries of “Hear! Hear!”)

A voice: Let’s have this petition road. A lot of us don't know what it

The chairman: Have you it Mr McLeod? Mr McLeod: No, I haven’t it with me. The chairman: Has anyone got a copy ? There was no response. Replying to a question by the chairman, Mr C. H. Slater said he understood that the petition meant giving the growers freedom of export, and that they could use the board if they wished. “I believe that is a good idea, and 1 favour that proposal,” he said, “but if it means that we cannot use the board at all then 1 am definitely against the proposal ” MR F KING’S MOTION. “That this meeting, being not satisfied with the petition dealing with the question of withdrawal from the Control Board as bas been proposed in tile petition put before the growers, therefore asks for the withdrawal of the petition and that another petition shall be circulated.” This was the motion moved by Air I’. King, who thought that with a fresh petition drawn up and circulated there could be no misunderstandings. This was seconded, pro forma, by Air I'. Sommens. Air Walker contended that the board did not adopt a proper and fit policy of distribution. He said he was of the opinion that this was the cause, to a very large extent, of the low prices realised last year, and not the economic position, for he contended that the economic position at Home was better last season than the previous year. At this stage several growers urged that the motion be put to the meeting. The chairman suggested that possibly it could be arranged that the sponsors of the petition should meet the loci’! representatives of the board to discuss the differences, and this suggestion met with general approval. SPONSORS' VIEWPOINT On behalf of the sponsors. Mi .1. Gordon said that they wanted io have the bojid reduce Goodwin’s proportion of this season's quota. He maintained

that the board had taken no notice of the decision of the Hawke’s Bay growers at their last meeting. The chairman: Of course ne cannot speak for the other members of the board. Mr Sommens: Can the board change tho quotas? The chairman: I suppose so. Air King said he was prepared to withdraw his motion provided that the conference was to discuss the petition but not the board’s policy regarding Goodwin’s. The chairman: Are you agreeable to that, Air Gordon? Mr Gordon: We are on the box seat, von know. The chairman: Is that a threat? Mr Gordon: No, but we want to let you know it. Mr King said that he was largely concerned with the question of affording those growers who lad signed under a misapprehension to clearly define their attitude. After further discussio.i Mr King agreed io withdraw his motion, im itie chairman's suggestion was adopted.