FRUIT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 10 August 1928, Page 3

FRUIT CONTROL

NELSON ORCHARDISTS' POSITION

(To tjtie Editor}

Sir, —1 have been interested in ' tji9 letters appearing' in your columns over IHe signatures' of W. W... Anderson. A. V.. Aliport, and W. W. Snodgrass. Mr Allport, as a. sturdy adypeote of tU« right of the individual to exercise some control over the product of" hja labour, is fully entitled to credit for (having clearly foreseen the dangers of absolute control. When .£?irr.g evidence before the" Parliarnoritary Committee in 1924 -Mr Allport emphasised these dangers, nildwus vole'd a eraflk by many of his' fellow orchardists' (including the wr'it-er.)V-who held *>lie Opinion that a Board, the majority of whom' were to be ejected by the glowers,'could be trusted to uphold'.'and'defend those privileges which play so important a part in the fight of the man on' the land against hard tim.es._nnd adversity. After three years,of trial we may well pauje and ask ourselves whether Mr Allport and those who supported him, were right or wrong. .■•',. '■''.■

Jt)st where do wo kelson orphardists stand to-day? As I see, if, thp position is as below:-- i (1) We have a Control Board of six members, five of whom are resident in the jS?oi!th: Island whicn supplies 25,per cent of the fruit; and'qpe in the South Island, with 75 per' cent of the fruit and a correspondingly heavy share of the expenses. ■

(2) The whole of the administrative offices have been rernoved tq Wellington, out, of direct touch with the bulk qf; Ihe suppliers, and actutlly, out of the: control of the Fruit Control Board. ,);

(3) 'Slipping from Wolsqn has,' at the: best, been flumped with faint praise. ' |j (4) Np' growor is permitted to cise the slightest discrimination' as "to when, where, or by whoni (his fruit shall be sold. ■'. ' .; .'. ' •-■ »<.''•.•

(5) No grower is permitted ;to place his naine or. h r afld PU his fruit, qr tp take any steps to ensure the saje of his fruit in consignments of reasonable size. (6) Brokers' commissions have increased and, in deference to the wishes of tlie brokers, f .o.b.- sales apd shjpm.ents to the Continent of Europe 'have' beep prohibited. ' : '.' ■-.'.: , ' '

(?) By reason of the' operation of absolute control a monopoly lias been created in wrapping paper, labels, . and other supplies aflcj prices have been high, 1 (8) Levies for export purposes have been struck by two separate organisations and in this way the clause in the Fruit Control Act limiting expenditure to 3d per case h*s been evaded* apd,if. the prqppsed CfUpantee Fun 4 is established, will be further evaded. '•'.; (9j Enquiries as to.-prices obtained by our competitors are not encouraged, so wo are unable, tq ascertain if we are repeivijig ap adequate monetary advantage to compensate us for the loss of every "privilege which makes life worth .while to a pioneer on the land. v

(10) Overtures advocating more representation for the South Island, the right to hold an annual conference of pxporters, and- the right of every exporter to a vote on all export matters, have been, refused, O/Pd it- Is ngw suggested that a further compulsory levy be struck (presumably, growers will be palled upon 0 to provide an overdraft for the purpose) to create a Beserve Fund j'to protect. the . Gpverninent, Guaraiitee"—a guarantee which, while provide ing fqr payment in fujl to spipping companies, b'bx' factories, merchants, "workmen, and Control Board, leaves absp T lutely nothing to the grower of the fruit'.! .Can, gp further?,. I '. ' ■"'? > ;'' I am, etc., ' .* ; F. E. "tfOfFAGffi, Tasmani BtlilAugust.' : '

(To the Editor)

• Sir.-r-I amvery pleased jndfiedtp note that Mr AHport has eh,sjmggc| -typ hewing of his letterj which is dealing with the .subject of Fruit Control published jn.your paper of the 7th inst.-' The original heading gave a .'very .unpleasant fone tp thje whale letter./ My reply dj4 nofr, endeayour in any way,' tq prove that. Mr Allport vfas wrqng, only to slate the true facts of the case, 'namely: That the Government did ;ijot force Control upqp the fr\ptgrqwers,* \yer3, on ' th,? C $?!U tr.ary, forced 0y to introduce Control. ;.' ' After the Fruit Control Act was passed in 1924, a poll of fruitgrowers .who were affected by the- provisions pf the Act was taken, on the question of whether the Act shouldbe brought into operation. This poll resulted in the proposal being carried by 191 vptes to 40. So much for Dominion Control. i

, Qtsigo' presented the necessary' petition, and were "excluded from tlje operations of tjie Control Board, and the same course is still open to' Nelson if j the discontent is so 'great as suggested by IVEr Allporfc. " '. I jiold no jjrief for the fibnkql Board, But •from' enquiries among many fruitgrowers T find satisfaction expressed at I the operations ; of the Board in dealing i with Naturally, I made i some enquiries about .{Jig matter of fruit control from the Headquarters, . of ■the Board'"itself," and furrier, in reply to Mr Allport, would, say that nis statement about the South„ American, "market is not cqrrect. In the "Qrojj&p-j' qist" (Ist. June) tjie prices realised tor- ■ Otago apples per the Pakeha to Monte" Video are given., and Delicious realised 15s Id and Jonathan 13s 3d f.o.b. wherer as in the same' ship, a larger quantity of the same varieties was sent to the same port by the Control Board, and, realised: Delicious 16s 4d, Jonathan 14s 4d f.o.b. which are 'substantially better .prices than the Otago realisations." In reference to "the South Australian prices; there appears to be no definite information available—probably Mr Allport has this, if so, I would be glad to know if his information here is as reliable as his information in reference to the South American market. The comparison of prices obtained for New Zealand and Australian apples is so greatlv in. favourvof the New Zealand apple, that it cannot .he gainsaid; whether this'is due to. the operations of the Control Board in New Zealand, I am not prepared to say, but sincerely hope ttjat it is. ' I am, etc., W. W. SNODGEASS. Wellington, Bth August.' (To the Editor) ' Sir.rr-In his letter of 7th inst referring to my statement regarding commissions saved through the action of Colonel flravi chairman of the Control Board, Mr AJlport apparently understands that 1 referred to 'broker's' selling commission. It was New Zealand agents' com- 1 missions, passed on to growers in brokr ers' charges, that I referred to. The ( cost in, compensations paid to obtain the abolition of this charge was justified in order to maintain our control svstetfl, and would be lost without it. Mr Allport M'oul'd bo glad to be without the guafanfe.e to have a free hand.- No doubt some growers may be in n pork tinp to do without the assistance afford-, ed ny the guarantee, and take the risks of markets entirely upon themselves;. I others are not.-rrl am, etc., ~ W. W. ANDEBSON. Riwnka. '-M August. '