COMPULSORY FRUIT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 7 August 1928, Page 5

COMPULSORY FRUIT CONTROL

(To the Editor) Sir.—ln view of correspondence in the "Mail" over the signatures of A. V. Allport, W. W. Snodgrass and W. W. Anderson, I have made careful inves-' tigation from, reliable sources and I find the position to be somewhat as follows : Mr Allport's statements are, in the main, correct and coming from, him, than whom there has not been a more ardent and active supporter and worker; for Reform*, shows how humiliating and galling the operations of . export under compulsory control have been. The Government is to blame for placing such a dangerous instrument in the hands of any body of men; the Bill was drafted by the Government and the responsibility is theirs. When evidence was being taken before the Bill was finally put to the House, Mr Allport strongly objected to the compulsory clause, hut Mr Nosworthy, who Was in charge of the Bill, gave an absolute assurance that it would never be used. . To which Mr Allport replied, "Well, if it will never be used why put it in ? Cut it out. and take no risks." But it was not cut out and although the Control Board refrained from using it the first and second years, it then arbitrarily put it into operation. This not" only caused a serious cleavage in the orchardists' organisations, but has eliminated those factors so essential to the production of the highest possible grade article, nameIjy initiative, incentive to best efforts and pride of product. I find also that Mr Allport in his objection to interference in the matter of varieties and time of picking is on sound ground. The Control Board's representative, after a few weeks in London, came back and -announced that after 1929 certain varieties would have to be cut out and growers would have to "work over" with approved varieties, and also that we must have fruit cool stored in England to come on to the market iii August. Yet it appears that growers, working early and late at high pressure under anxious conditions, have to rush their, fruit off the trees long before a big percentage of It is properly coloured and matured, the result being that owing to the drastic export regulations, a considerable portion is rejected and later thrown on. the local market in-a shrivelled and leathery condition. Why do •this, particularly with the late, good keeping varieties? Far better allow them to remain on the trees longer for colour and maturity and spread the delivery to a later period on the Home market. Growers now find that some of the varieties Control said must be cut out are heating some of the more favoured varieties in net results per tree owing to their being heavy croppers". The argument that Mr Allport is against organisation is rubbish. He has, I understand, given generously of his time and experience as president of the Stoke Association and otherwise for many years. He is looked upon as being one of the soundest, most experienced and progressive orchardists in the Nelson district, and has done much to assist the development of the industry. But apparently he has a backbone and objects to being deprived of the riglit to sell his own goods where and to whom he pleases. Under compulsory control he rinds the capital, the big costs of production, the energy, anxiety and long hours of toil, and then has no more say than W. W. Snodgrass concerning the marketing of it. This is done by men who are neither experienced business men nor experienced orchardists, as I understand that last year a professional soldier undertook the big responsibility of distribution, and this year it is being done by a farmer who comparatively recently" came to New Zealand and took up orcharding. t have taken up enough of your valuable space for the present, Mr Editor, but after investigating some of the points raised bv W. W. Snodgrass and W. W. Anderson, I shall be glad of a little # morc space to reply to them.— I am, etc., JOHN BULL. 7th August. .