CONTROL OF FRUIT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 15 June 1926, Page 4

CONTROL OF FRUIT

REJECTED BY CANTERBURY GROWERS AT PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REMITS THROWN OUT (By Telegraph.—Special to The Mpil.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 14. Remits favouring the control of apples were under fire at the fruit growers' provincial conference on Saturday evening. They were as follows: —That compulsory standardisation be adopted for local markets, and that all fruit below a specified grade be eliminated from sale in the open markets” (Te K'auwhala Association); “That the conference request the Government to amend the Fruit Control Act to enable local control to be cau'ied by 60 per cent- of those \vho vote instead of as at present 60 per cent of those.on the roll” (Moutere Association).

The chairman (Mr F. W. Cone) read a letter from the clialfman of the Nelson Provincial Council urging the compulsory standardisation ctf fruit and the throwing out of rubbish from the . mar* kets. It was proposed, the letter stated, to give the matter further consideration with a view to arriving a.f a working arrangement at the conference to be held at the same time as the Dominion Conference.

Mr R. E. Stephens, member for Nelson, Marlborough, and Canterbury . on the Fruit Control Board, strongly supported the proposal, which he described as being in the direction of local control. ' He-said that owing to the stringent conditions of the bruit Co-n----irol Act, it, had not been found possible to-’ bring it into effect in Nelson, ioey found it beyond them to get affirmative votes from 60 per cent of Lie fruitgrowers on the roil, as demanded by the Act. Voluntary control ..ad been tried, but the scheme was not Very, successful. Through tha disloyalty c\f some members it was found unworkable. it had been discovered that .the time was not ripe tor a marketing scheme, so it was though tne best thing that could now be" done was to control the grade of fruit going on to the market. “There is a terrible lot of rubbish being sold at Nelson," said Mr Stephens, “and it affects the price of good fruit. ’ If they could control the Wellington auction rooms they could automatically control 'the rest of the Dominion, if he wa sa. Canterbury-man he would support- the proposal to keep the rubbish from Nelson off the Canterbury market. It was impossible for i\elson growers to sell their higher grades in Christchurch, and -competition irom this stuff was inconsiderable compared with that from; the rubbish. Christchurch was the only place in New Zealand where rubbish could be disposed' of in large, quantities. Hawke’s Bay and. Auckland bad .agreed, to - support a scheme tor the control of lower grade fruit. “it is a good scheme left alone,” said -Mr F. \V. Sisson. “When a. man sends rubbish he loses the trade.”

1 "We-don’t want any control. 'We' want to'sell as much fruit as possible off the orchard,’ .’said '.Sisson. "Under control the numerous fruitgrowers who sold direct to the consumers would be blocked , from . giving the. latter the advantage of saving -the charges of the retailer. The scheme would increase the cost of apples. The rubbish from Nelson does not affect our prices,” said Mr Sisson It's shillings below them. We. ham a Jot of Canterbury, rubbish too,‘but it brings a rubbisn price. What on earth they sell it for x don’t know. It cant' pay.” The chairman said they had decided long ago that they did not want any control in Canterbury. •

Mr Stephens said it- was not their experience that- the growers would / cease selling rubbish because it did not pay. Some of them received only the price of the case and some even less, but that did not stop them. At the present rate vendors of rubbish would, take 20 years to go out and they would, take some good orchardists X/illi them. The scheme would not affect fruit iold in the orchard, as it would not apply there. The inspector could not see the fruit sold in this manner. “We want control only in the markets where the prices fire given publication,”said Mr Stephens. “Those'are the ones that '.affect the other market?.” .. Mr F. W. Sisson said that if 'Auck-' uind and Hawke’s Bay were in favour 'control would be approved. ie chairman: “It’s been turned down every time, yet.” Mr N. Goldsbery also opposed the scheme, which he said was a move to make the Fruit Control Act operative. The two remits were rejected.