FRUIT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 7 August 1928, Page 9

FRUIT CONTROL

A FURTHER PROTEST (To the Editor) Sir,—-Mr Snodgrass has ;,. long letter in your issue of the 3rd inst. in reply to mine, which does not prove at all that i am wrong?' Mow can Mr Sripdgra.;j defend ;ui Act as being democratic or in any way an Act of justice that needs to have 70 per cent, against, it and only 30 per cent, for it to carry it and keep it in operation, and then say that it is majority rule? When the Control Act was brought into force it was by no means the unanimous wish of the- growers, there being very strong opposition to it, and then many growers were deceived into accepting it, on the untruthful and unreliable assurance that any board elected would never put the extreme powers of the Act into force.

It does not in the least matter how the Fruit- Control Act is administered, whether direct by the Government or by a board that has Government authority to act. It is still, I maintain,-an act of Sovietism, in fact, the action of the Government in appointing members on that Board proves that they recognise their responsibility, and they are responsible for everything that the. Board docs. I wish to reiterate, that the Nelson district would have been many thousands of pounds better off without control, as wo have it that the returns for this season will be practically nil, while there were good payable prices offered for our apples f.o.b. which we were not allowed to accept. It is very little satisfaction to hear that our apples top the market if the growers get nothing in return. How does Mr Snodgrass account for South Australian apples fetching higher prices than ours? He does not tell your readers when comparing Australian pricos' of < their' lower 'costs', and that their case contains much less fruit than ours. ,

...M 1 ' Snodgrass makes a foolish comparison between a public company and the fruit control. There r is nothing" analagous between them, as in a public company the shareholder goes in voluntarily and with the idea, of making a profit on his investment, and is not compelled lo hand over his goods to lie dealt with, by the company*, to do as it sees fit with them, and if he, is not satisfied with their management, ho can always retire by selling out. On the other hand, under the fruit control a grower by Act of Parliament is compelled to hand over his fruit to them to deal with as they think fit, and he has no redress, however he. may be dissatisfied with their management. Where can Mr Snodgrass'find a more Bolshevik clause in any Parliamentary Act than in the Fruit Control Act, wliich says that the Bdard may sell, mortgage, ship, or do any other thing with a grower's fruit, exactly the same as if the Board was the owner of such fruit.

Mr Snodgrass quotes figures re South America which prove nothing, as he does not give figures on the reverse side for comparison. Evidently Mr Snodgrass is very well posted with the inner workings of the Control Board and the prices they obtain for our fruit, but can he answer this: Why is it that Olago fruit that is not under control is receiving higher prices in the South American market than we are?

In passing I would like to draw your attention to the fact that before control came in and under private enterprise Nelson had practically a monopoly of the South American market, but since then the control has given the best markets to other districts, until Nelson now only exports under half that sent there from New Zealand.

Does Mr Snodgrass consider it intelligent distribution on the part of the Control Board when we hear that the Glasgow market is bare and they had not arranged to send fruit to the Continent while good prices were to be had there, and also when growers receive a big pile of account sales,for small lot's of fruit, most of the accounts containing sales for one, two or three cases, where is the good organisation in that? Or the boasted promise that the Control Board would sell in long lines? I quite agree that it is necessary to cut the costs as low as possible, but under the Government! and control management; they have been mounting at an alarming rate. Ido not know of one of their actions that has tended to lower costs.

If Mr Snodgrass lias come in contact with many growers that are satisfied with the working of the control he must also come across many that are not. Even if some are satisfied that is no reason why they should ride rough shod over those who are not, even if they are in a minority, which I very much doubt.Sorry that I cannot'move in getting a poll any more than Mr Snodgrass can, as I have no more standing in the matter than he has,, although I am an exporter, under the provisions of the Government Soviet or Control Act, 1 have never had a vote, and coukl not have one even if I .exported half the apples from New Zealand.

In Mr Snodgrass's conclusions he breaks out into his own personal opinions on f.o.b. sales, and as this is entirely opposed to anything he had writ tm previously, the only inference I can draw is that the forepart of his. letter was dictated to him by someone else. What would Mr'Snodgrass say if. the Government made it compulsory for all those engaged in the same business us lie is to set up a control board elected by all those engaged in it, with the hundreds of small stores selling the same goods as his as a side line, having the same vote as he would have,, with a third of the board Government t appointees, and then the board telling him that he must not sell his goods for eislvas that would be competing against themselves, but he must submit his wares to auction':' T fancy I hear what ho would say. There is nothing much in Mr Anderson's letter not answered in the foregoing. The Control Board does not guar antee a minimum price any more than the Russian Soviet does to the peasants.: . The Control Board has : certainly •abolished the agents who were doing quite a legitimate trade and working well in the interests of the-growers, but without, as Mr Anderson says, saving the growers thousands of pounds commission, but in spite of Colonel Gray's assertion that commissions were to be lowered, the commissions charged by the brokers are the same and in some cases more than before the Board took control and there are also the thousands the Control Board is costing, to be paid for, so that we are very much worse oil. It is quite wrong to 'say that I am against organisation, as 1 have always supported it, but not, compulsory confiscation of individual rights to their own property. The date-fixing for the picking of apples is all nonsense, aa the dates fixed last year were found to bo wrong and had to be altered at the lrst minute, making -onfusion. Imy self was forced to pick apples quite a month before they were ready, owing to time limits; in fact, they were not fit for pigs to eat, let alone human beings. I would gladly be without the Government guarantee if they would give me the right to deal with the fruit I produce, without the restrictions imposed by the Government and the Control Board, and would also pay the 3d per case levy to help the other fellow, without, enquiring as to what they did with it.—l am, etc., ALFRED V. ALLBORT. Stoke, 4th Aug.