Manawatu Daily Times

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6868, 25 March 1929, Page 6

Manawatu Daily Times

Downfall of Fruit Board

•THE; decision ox the Full Court against the Fruit Control Board X in its attempt to retain its powers of absolute control was generally expected. The story of the whole case may he compressed into a few sentences. When the Fruit Control Board, constituted by Act of Parliament in 1924, determined two years later to exercise its latent authority to take absolute control of fruit sent abroad is was saddled by an Order-in-Council with additional responsibilities. These responsibilities included a provision to the effect that it should give notice of its intentions to assume absolute control “either by service or by publication” and that in the case of publication notice should be given in the “New Zealand Gazette” and in at least two newspapers “published and circulating in the provincial district in which such control is to be assumed.” The prescribed notice was duly published in the required number of newspapers in the respective districts and the growers, it seems, were content during the two succeeding seasons to assume it also had appeared in the “New Zealand Gazette,” a publication which makes but little appeal to the average newspaper reader.

A month or two ago, however, a number of enterprising growers and exporters had occasion to doubt if the notice ever had been published in the “Gazette” and by an exhaustive search satisfied themselves that their doubt was well grounded; that the notice, indeed, never had appeared in the official publication. Assuming that this omission rendered the absolute control of the Board invalid, notwithstanding the fact that it had operated for two seasons, the growers and exporters opened up negotiations for the sale of 30,000 cases of apples to a German firm at a price, f.0.b., which would give them a highly satisfactory return and relieve the Government, sen far as this shipment was concerned, of any obligation under its guarantee of 11s a case for exported apples. In one recent season, it will be remembered, this guarantee cost the taxpayers no less than £90,000. The promoters of the shipment of 30,000 cases were negotiating with another German firm for a further shipment of 40,000 cases at a satisfactory price, and there is no reasonable doubt that tlxis deal and several others, all freeing the Government from responsibility, would have, been completed had not the board positively refused to allow the producers to do as they pleased with their own fruit.

This refusal was made all the more exasperating to the wouldbe shippers by the fact that the board had made no effective effect to open up the German market to New Zealand apples until private enterprise had shown the way. The growers and exporters were so assured of the righteouness of their cause that they took their claim to handle their own produce to the Full Court and that body nmv has justified their action. If the hoard is involved in heavy costs and damages it will have only itself to blame. The would-be shippers, after consultation with the Prime Minister, suggested that the difficulty might he overcome by the fruit being shipped to its intended destination by the hoard under separate hills of lading and that on the decision of the Court being given these bills of jading should he retained by the hoard or handed over to the shippers as the case might be. Sir Joseph Ward regarded this as an equitable solution of the difficulty and communicated his view to the board; but a majority of the members would entertain no idea of compromise and the decision of the Full Court is the result.

The whole story as it was revealed before the Full Court did not reflect a great deal of credit upon the board which set out four years ago to demonstrate the superiority of absolute control over free marketing. First of all, there is the fact that the board, cither wilfully ignored or carelessly overlooked the provision in the Order-in-Council that it should publish its intention to assume absolute control of expoited fruit in the “New Zealand Gazette.” Then there is the hoard’s method of finding new markets for the growers’ produce. Apparently the members of the board have no live initiative of thc-ir own. They look about, by fits and starts, to see •what other shippers are doing and if they learn that one of their rivals lias done well in a particular market they determine to ship to that market in the following year when the conditions may have oniirely changed. Finally there is their refusal to accept the suggestion to allow the German shipments to go forward in the ordinary course and to leave the question of handling to the decision of the Full Court. Their refusal to accept this very reasonable compromise probably will,involve the board in substantial damages to be passed on in due course to the unhappy producers