FRUIT CONTROL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3864, 3 April 1928, Page 12

FRUIT CONTROL.

HAMPERING GROWERS. MARKETING DIFFICULTIES. By Taxpayer. When the Fruit Control Board was established under the legislation of 1924. it was assumed by a very large proportion of the growers that they still would be at liberty to dispose of their produce according to their own opportunities and judgment. _ The Otago growers—more “ canny,” it may be assumed, than a majority of the other growers—made assurance doubly sure by taking advantage of a clause in the Act, which enabled them by a majoority of 70 per cent, to vote themselves out of the operation of the measure. In every other district the board exercises absolute control over every bushel of fruit exported from the Dominion, just as the Dairy Board exercised absolute control over every pound of butter and cheese sent out of the country until the revolt of the producers last year. There is a movement on foot now m the Tasman (Nelson) district, however, for the removal, or, at any rate, the modification of this arbitrary restriction, and a petition presented to the board and to the Minister of Agriculture, bearing the signatures of exporters of over 150,000 cases of fruit from this district surely must bear weight with the authorities. The signatories to the petition complain that under the existing compulsory system they are not only compelled to accept the risks of the market months ahead but also are deprived of the recurring opportunities that come their way to make free-on-board sales, which often would be greatly to their advantage. The board will not allow f.o.b. sales, no matter what the offered price may be, with the result that buyers on these terms, of whom there are a considerable number each year, must turn either to Otago or to Australia for their supplies. It is estimated that over. 1,000.000 cases of apples have been sold on a f.o.b. basis by the Australian States this season, and it’is reasonable to assume that at least a third of this business would have come to New Zealand but for the restrictions placed upon the growers. These restrictions upon the marketing of the growers’ produce are made all the more Irksome by the fact that they were not imposed until -.’) vears after the pioneers in the industry > had invested their capital and their labour in their holdings with the full assurance of a free hand and an open market. A pioneer, who; opened up the Tasman district some 17 years ago and has done much to earn for it its reputation as a foremost apple-growing area, declares that he would not have planted a single » tree nor spent a single shilling in the _ place had he anticipated that in the years to come h e would be tied hand and foot by a Control Board. Initiative, industry, ambition, 4 enterprise, even selfrespect, he states, are hampered by meddlesome officialism, which is responsible for many of the troubles besetting the orchardists at the present time. Recently the Tasman growers were offered 8s per case for 10,000 cases of third grade apples f.o.b. either at Nelson or Wellington. The Cantrol Board would not, however, allow them to accept the offer, though it would have involved it in no responsibility or risk and would have given the growers a net return of 4s 6d a case—a figure they are not at all likely to obtain under any other arrangement. This is a fair example of the policy by which the board is stifling* enterprise on the part of the growers and imperilling the stability of their industry. Perhaps it will , be. doing the hoard no injustice to say that it is relying upon the

Government’s guarantee becoming a permanent contribution to the fruit industry. Its policy and administration suggest this io be the case. Last season, when the London market took a favourable turn for the growers, the Minister of Agriculture accompanied his congratulations with an intimation that the fruit industry had reached a stage in its development at which it should stand on its own feet. He was quite resolved upon this point—for a week or two! Then he was persuaded to grant a somewhat smaller guarantee than that of the previous year, and a month or two later he added a further shilling, just by way of luck, it would seem. At the time these guarantees were given the prospects of the approaching season appeared to be favourable, and the Minister, doubtless, counted upon London prices putting him right again. But the outlook to-day is not nearly so favourable as it was then. It was reported that there had been a light crop in America, but it is now known that the States will have a large exportable balance, and the Home and Dominion supplies will constitute a record. In these circumstances it surely is bad business on the part of the board to prevent 10,000 -cases of third grade apples being shipped out of the country at a price that would return the growers 4s 6d a case. These apples do not, of course, participate in the subsidy, whether they ar . e .shipped away or remain in the Dominion, and in the latter event they will make a much smaller return to the grower than the sum assured by the outside buyer. Held, perforce, for the local trade a large proportion of them will pass into the auction rooms, where they may realise as little as Id a pound. Long before the board came into existence Nev? Zealand apples had established their reputation on. the London market, selling at better prices than did any other imported fruit, and that the institution of control has Slot enhanced their popularity may be judged by the fact that while uncon.trolled apples from Otago last year averaged 18s 3d a case on the open market, controlled apples from the rest of the Dominion averaged only 16s a case. Surely, in view of facts of this kind, the board should be giving attention to the representations of - experienced growers and business men who have been co-oper-ating for years in an effort to maintain the industry on a sound basis.