The Northern Advocate Daily “NORTHLAND FIRST” SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1938. Fruit Prices

Northern Advocate, 28 May 1938, Page 4

The Northern Advocate Daily “NORTHLAND FIRST”

SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1938. Fruit Prices

Registered for transmission through the post as a Newspaper

GOVERNMENT intervention in tiie retail fruit business in New Zealand has not been attended by conspicuously happy results. The present Government, in attempting to regulate

prices, and arrange adequate supplies, is merely continuing a process that was begun by its predecessors. It is true that it has gone further than they did; but at the same time it must be given credit tor a seirous and conscientious effort to remedy present weaknesses,, particularly in regard to supplies of oranges and mandarins. The futility of New Zealand’s embargo on Australian oranges (imposed by a previous Government) was a graphic lesson in the danger of interfering with the free flow of trade, particularly between two sister. Dominions which should be free of economic jealousies. The fault was not New Zealand’s alone. Australia objected to New Zealand, potatoes, therefore New Zealand refused to have Australian oranges. In depriving herself of this source of supply, New Zealand took a step which seriously increased, the price of an. essential food. Indeed, mandarins for some years were unprocurable and oranges, at times, in such short supply that they were sold at the ridiculous price of sd. each.

The Labour Party, when in Opposition, strenuously attacked the orange embargo and made its removal a plank in its platform, but, on getting into power, it was a long time in doing anything, and the public had to wait until election year for the fulfilment of the promise that cheap fruit would be made available to all. Whether this promise can actually be carried out, however, without imposing an additional burden on the taxpayer, has yet to be demonstrated. After the recent shipment by the Matua, oranges and mandarins were cheaper than they had been for some years, but it has since been disclosed (though not officially) that the Government lost about £6OOO on that shipment. Thus the idea that the public is getting cheap fruit, just because the prices across the counter in the fruit shops are low, becomes purely an illusion, since the taxpayer has to make up the deficiency.

The claim of the Minister of Marketing, the Hon. W. Nash, that banana prices have been lowered by Government intervention is also disputed by fruiterers, one of whom states that banana prices for the month of May in 1934, 1935 and 1936 averaged 15s. Td. a case, whereas lately the average has been 31s. 3d. a case. It will he interesting to see what reply, if any, the Minister makes to these figures.

The whole point is that meddling in such businesses is a dangerous game. The New Zealand fruit business particularly in respect to the island trade has been developed by merchants who have been in the business for generations. Politicians have found it popular to represent such men as cynical profiteers, but when the Government tries to take over the business wholly ,or in part it finds there are many snares and pitfalls to account for the apparent disparity between landed costs, or costs f.o.h. in the islands, and the price to retailers in New Zealand.

No one will dispute that the provision of cheap fruit is an entirely commendable objective. Dietitians stress the value of fruit, particularly to children, and it should he available to all. But fruit is not cheap when the Government has to recoup, its losses through the pockets of the taxpayer. There is good reason to suspect that the best way to get cheap fruit is to allow the rival, fruit interests to run their businesses without interference, allowing ffee competition to keep prices down, in accordance with sound economic principles.