TARIFF REVISION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21986, 22 June 1933, Page 12

TARIFF REVISION

EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSION JAM AND CANNED FRUIT TRADE (Special to Daily Times.) WELLINGTON, June 21. A joint case on behalf of three firms representing the jam-making and fruitcanning industry—Thompson and Hills, Ltd., S. Kirkpatrick and Co., Ltd., and Irvine and Stevenson’s (St. George Company, Ltd.), was presented to-day to the Tariff Commission. The secretary of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation (Mr A. E. Mander) said that the three firms were responsible for 90 per cent, of the jam and canned fruit output of New Zealand. The present tariff on jams, jellies, marmalade vand preserves was 2d per lb British, 2Jd Australia and 5d general, and they sought to increase this to 3d on all parts of the Empire except the United Kingdom. On fruits preserved in juice or syrup the present tariff was 25 per cent. British and 50 per cent, general, and they asked for the raising of the tariff against Australia to 35 per cent. On fruit pulp the present tariff was lid per lb British and lid per lb general, and they asked for lid per lb United Kingdom, 2d per lb Australia, and 2}d per lb general. The industry used almost entirely New Zealand materials, and .was especially suitable to the Dominion. There were G 204 registered orchards in New Zealand and the fruit-growers last year sold over £72,000 worth of fruit to jam-making and canning factories. The value of the capital in the industry was £204,777. There were 228 males and 213 females employed in the industry, receiving wages amounting to £59,074. The total output in 1932 was valued at, £305,808. The average actual weekly earnings for employees in the large firms in the United Kingdom was 35s sd, while that for those engaged by the smaller firms was 34s sd. In New Zealand the average was 59s lOd. In Great Britain the ruling price for sugar was £l7 to £lB per ton compared with £25 to £26 per ton in New Zealand. Land, building and the cost of finance were also considerably more expensive in New Zealand. In Australia the grower had been heavily subsidised by public funds, and the States had made costly experiments in establishing State canneries. Land suitable for fruit growing in Australia was Available, at £ls an acre as compared with £7O in New Zealand.

Professor Murphy: You say that the price of land is a factor in the costs! Mr Mander; Yes.

Professor Murphy: Then you are wrong. It is not the cost of land which raises the price. It is the price which raises the cost of the land. \ Mr Mander said that the land could be used for alternative purposes. Professor Murphy agreed that if the land were worth £7O per acre for alternative purposes then it would be a factor in the costs.

Mr Mander said that without tariff protection it would he impossible for fruit canners to compete with imports. The extinction of the industry in New Zealand would certainly result in disastrous consequences, not only to the 1200 or more workers and their dependants engaged in this particular industry, but also to a large proportion of the 10,000*07 more persons engaged in fruit growing, Mr Charles Miller, managing director of Kirkpatrick and Co., Ltd., said that America with its huge mass production and its large home trade in a highly protected market was able to sell its surplus overseas at low prices. South Africa with its cheaper labour, cheap fruit and sugar and low freight to New Zealand, and Australia with its subsidised and bounty fed industry and highly protected home market would continue dumping canned fruits into New Zealand unless the duty was made prohibitive. Witness quoted a letter written to his firm by Mr L. B. Foster, of Motucka, who had had considerable fruit-growing experience in Australia. He had stated that the Federal Government had spent huge sums on export bounties, pools, writing off land settlement, etc. Mr Foster had said that New Zealand was under a: disadvantage as regards climate. Australia with its inland valleys had an almost ideal climate for stone fruits, especially peaches. Furthermore, the number ,of sprayings in Australia was less.

Professor Murphy: It would appear that New Zealand was not suitable f6r growing peaches. If this country is not suitable for growing peaches would it not be better to concentrate on those fruits for which the country is adapted? With a tariff of 500 per cent, you could grow bananas in Stewart Island. Mr Milner said that the standard of New Zealand peaches was improving. The growers were gaining experience and it was hoped to be able to grow peaches equal to the Australian product. This was bomb out by Mr Foster, who was confident that it was possible to produce a first-class canning peach in Now Zealand, quite equal to any he had seen cither in Australia or the United States, Mr Frank Minton Hills said .that the jam and canning industry gave a stimulus to such industries as timber milling, box and carton making, sugar refining, coal mining, transport, etc., and if the future of, their firms were jeopardised thdre would be an increase in the number of unemployed. If they invited England to injure New Zealand’s orchardists and industrial workers they would be damaged not for the benefit of England alone, but for the benefit also of an array of foreign growers who supplied England with oranges, lemons and great quantities of fruit pulps. It was better for the Dominion to build up its own industries provided the protection was not, too high, and ho thought the requests they were making were most reasonable. Representatives of the jam and fruit canning companies were ''examined in camera this afternoon.

The commission adjourned till to-mor-row. /