GROWERS CONCERNED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 27 November 1942, Page 1

GROWERS CONCERNED

MAXIMUM PRICE FOR VEGETABLES POSSIBLE FIXATION WITHOUT HEARING EVIDENCE MR A. E. BROUGH ADDRESSES MEETING Concern that the Price Tribunal might fix maximum prices for vegetables without hearing evidence by growers, was expressed last night by Mr A. E. Brough, president of the Nelson Tomato Growers’ Association and acting-president of the New Zealand Commercial Gardeners’ Association. He addressed a meeting of tomato and vegetable growers at the Nelson Institude on his recent visit to Welling ton and attendance at a meeting of the Price Tribunal. Several Waimca growers were present last evening. Mr Brough asked the meeting to appoint another chairman so that he would be free to give a report. Mr A. B. Inglis, vice-president of the association, was elected chairman. He explained that the meeting was called to hear a report from Mr Brough on the meeting of the Price Tribunal. The chairman said that he thought it was the intention of the Government to fix not only the price of sauce tomatoes but also the ceiling price for all primary produce. It would be for the meeting to consider if any action should be taken to combat the Government’s intentions. Mr Brough explained that he had gone to Wellington to attend a meeting of the Minister’s Advisory Committee, and while there he had found to his disgust that rumours of ceiling prices were true, and that another committee was working on ceiling prices.

He. explained events leading up to the meeting of the Price Tribunal. The association’s secretary had telegraphed every district and asked them to go into costs of production and send delegates to Wellington. Growers responded and delegates met in Wellington on the | Saturday morning. Soon after midday they were told that no growers’ repre- ! sentative would be admitted to the Price Tribunal. However, representa--1 tions were made and finally they were j admitted. After hearing Mr Brough a i member of the Tribunal compared the I association's cost figures with figures j prepared by the Department, to the association's detriment The association had worked out Nelson growers’ costs at over £lB per ton and Waimea growers’ costs at £l7 18s sd. Mr Brough said he challenged the figures of the Department. The Tribunal came back to the old formula, “What was the price in 1938-30. and what was the price today?” They wanted to make growers’ rise in price in accordance with the price in 1938-39. Mr Brough made the point that growers had only supplied the surplus crop and even then showed that they could not grow tomatoes at Id per lb to make them pay. He had told the Tribunal that growers would be happy to supply to the factory at £l2 10s this year if the market price was left alone, but he was ruled out. The Hutt representative said he had not had time to work out costs and the Canterbury representat.ve had put their cost at £l7. Both these districts would have the privilege of putting costs to

the Tribunal later. Captain Cooksley had been replaced as liaison officer by Mr Ben Roberts, M.P., and Mr Brough said that he did not think they would get a very sympathetic hearing from Mr Roberts. The Tribunal Judge had told him that i the Minister was going to standardise all primary production. The Tribunal had their instructions and had to consider the stabilisation of prices, so th«c was coming. It was in the Price Tribunal’s hands, and an announcement had not been made of what the grower would receive from the factory. But the association felt that the Tribunal was going to deal with ceiling prices and that the association should have a say. It was thought that the only thing to do was to get every district to go thoroughly into costs of all vegetable production. It had been suggested that the association should get the help of an economist to put the case to the Tribunal. Otherwise the association felt that the industry was threatened with extinction almost. The association’s council needed monev to make a fight! CASE OF THL PEAGBOVVERS In reply to Mr V. Vitetta Mr Brough said that if the telegrams had not been sent out by the association growers would not have had an opportunity of attending the sittir*., of the Tribunal, nor would peagrowers. At a meeting of the Ministers Advisory Committee of ccmmercial growers Mr Brough made | representations about the price pea I growers were receivir : at the factory, i On that Captain Cooksley was instruct | ed to come to Nelson to try to straighten j the matter out, and at the same time he I was delegated to make representations ! from the Dominion Council of Commercial Gardeners to peagrowers explainI ing the matter of the Price Tribunal. As a result of that pea. rowers sent a dele gate to the Tribunal, j Mr Vitetta commented that it seemed : a pity that Mr Pugh had made the statement he had in “The Mail” when peagrowers were under an obligation to the commercial growers’ association | that they were able to attend, j Mr Brough said that probably.Mr j Pu Sh did not know the story behind it. j The chairman asked if it was true I that the Price Tribunal had never heard I evidence from anyone in fixing prices. That might be the custom, replied j Mr Brough, and that might account for I the position the association’s repre- | sentatives were in Wellington that day. Mr H. Care-Cottrell said that £9 : was only the price for reject tomatoes and was not the cost of production. That j fact should be impressed on the Price I Tribunal. ; The meeting decided to call a special i meeting of the association to consider j imposing a levy t 0 raise funds for j the association’s campaign to deal with ceiling prices.