FRUIT CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22742, 30 November 1935, Page 21

FRUIT CONTROL

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —As a Nelson grower who assisted in a humble way to bring about the Fruit Control Board, and to assist it in its early years, I would like the opportunity of telling Otago why I am in direct opposition to the board at the present time, and why I consider that control has nothing to, offer to Otago. The board came into existence for the purpose of providing machinery by -which the expqrters could retain control of their produce up to the last possible day before placing it definitely in the hands of the salesman. This was with the idea that a broker’s individual interest bf possible change in market conditions after despatch would not load the dice against a particular shipment. In fact, it was supposed to be control b- the grower, backed by Act of Parliament, to put control on a sound base. What is the position to-day? In the first place, the industry is now controlled by certain dominant personalities, backed by long association with departmental circles. With two Government nominees and an elective system which permits only two reappointments every three years, alternately, it is now hopeless to effect necessary changes. Board members now talk openly of the. board’s fruit and they deny the grower one particle of say in his own produce. This is the first idea for Otago to grapple with. The board never will function according to the wishes of the growers, except bv accident. It will move on the lines of -the strongest or more influential' board member. This also means that from the minute of Otago’s inclusion her growers lose every say in their produce. and. as importantly, their individual access to checking the progress of the fruit from the packing shed onwards. Should they anticipate a better return or lessened costs as sufficient gain to offset these losses in personal supervision, they will be unpleasantly surprised. At the moment, in return for increased expenditure, the Fruit Board will hand the bulk of the grower’s produce to one firm and apportion the rest to experimental markets at ruinous prices. As Otago growers can. at present, consign to that particular firm, if they should he so surprisingly minded, why put the fruit through expensive machinery to do it? Again, should they be public-spirited enough to advertise New Zealand produce in New York at their own expense, they ■'inv'do so now without mining the hoard. I am nersonally indifferent as to Otago’s ultimate decision except for one point: there will be no district left with which to compare the board returns and costs. No doubt the board has also considered this point. The most glaring indictment against the Fruit Board, however, is that it has made more enemies than anything else. In the United Kingdom markets the board’s bias for one firm has not in any way helped New- Zealand produce generally, nor are the main brokers or salesmen likely to feel cordial to the organisation. In destroying goodwill in the markets overseas the board is producing the counter blast at this end. In Nelson the petition against board policy was signed by 187 growers out of some 280 odd. In Hawke’s Bay, a meeting carried a similar resolution by approximately 98 to 8, and the interesting part from Otago’s point of view is that the board pronoses to take no notice.

In conclusion, I would simply state that in mf opinion control will not work. It is a fine theory but, if my conclusion is right, the board members must shoulder the full responsibility.—l am, etc., Nelson. A. Brown.