Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

EXPORT FRUIT

PRICES AT HOME. “NOT GETTING A FAIR RUN.” (Per United Press Association.) Hastings, June 16. Speaking at the annual provincial conference of fruitgrowers, Mr E. H. Williams said they were in the industry to make it pay. Assuming they could produce the best fruit in the world why couldn’t they get a better price in the London market ? He urged that the question of refrigerating machinery on ships and the handling of fruit should be investigated with a view to placing produce on the London market in the best condition. The marketing of fruit in Britain was mast important because they were not getting a fair run. They read that while their fruit was not reaching payable prices buyers were selling and making from 80 to 100 per cent, profit. “There is something wrong,” Mr Williams said. ‘The matter should be brought to the notice of the Premier, who could bring it before the Imperial Conference” Mr Williams continued: “Nearly everything necessary can be got within the Empire, but England throws open her markets to the foreigner, who responds by placing a high protective tariff on the exports. Mr Coates should be asked to bring this up also at the Imperial Conference with a view to preference being given to Empire products for six months of the year.” A total of 105 remits are being considered for sending to the Dominion Conference. LOCAL MARKETS. BETTER GRADE OF FRUIT WANTED. Napier, June 16. Speaking at the annual conference of Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers in Hastings this morning, Mr A. C. Brash, President of the New Zealand Federation, said there was among growers and consumers an increasing conviction that the industry should seek to supply a better grade of fruit to local markets. The consumer was increasingly inclined to ask why the fruit he bought in his own country was so poor when that sent to England was making such a name for itself. That complaint was made against the dairying industry 25 years ago but the consumer had rebelled and the butter now supplied on the local market was equal in quality to the best exported. The same remarks applied to the sale of meat. Mr Brash said something must be done to standardise the quality of fruit sold locally. An offending voting clause in the Fruit Control Act made local boards at present impossible, but he hoped that an amendment would be made this session referring to the need of organising for an effort. Mr Brash said there was growing up in New Zealand an increasing army of local agents of London merchants and they were seeking to get shipments for their principals. They were not doing that for nothing. The grower did all the spade work in producing the fruit whereas the agent reaped a very profitable reward for doing practically nothing. The speaker concluded with a plea for united support for the Federation’s trading enterprises. FREIGHT CHARGES. IMPORTATION OF CASES. Napier, June 16. Mr T. C. Brass, president of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation, stated at a meeting at Hastings to-day that freight charges paid to shipping companies by the three New Zealand Export Boards amounted to £3,000,000. About 500,000 Canadian fruit cases were imported into the Dominion last year and this year the importations will reach approximately the same figure. This means that about £20,000 is lost to the New Zealand timber trade. The use of Canadian cases is likely to increase and is advocted purely because of its great superiority over local production by the Fruitgrowers’ Federation. Though the New Zealand case is so inferior it costs more. These facts were mentioned a-t a conference of fruitgrowers this morning.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19260617.2.52

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 19898, 17 June 1926, Page 7

Word Count
614

EXPORT FRUIT Southland Times, Issue 19898, 17 June 1926, Page 7

EXPORT FRUIT Southland Times, Issue 19898, 17 June 1926, Page 7