The Daily News FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1929. MORE PROTECTION SOUGHT.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 July 1929, Page 10

The Daily News FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1929. MORE PROTECTION SOUGHT.

The New Zealand . Fruitgrowers’ Federation met in Wellington last week, and there was the inevitable deputation to Ministers. That has become a chronic habit year after year with respect to various associations, federations, societies, chambers. The piece de resistance presented by the fruitgrowers upon the unoffending Ministers of the Crown was protection. The member of the Federation who advanced the claim for. protection said that the main part of the industry in New Zealand was in respect of apples. Exports amounted to about a million cases a year, and local consumption supplies were about the same. Apples were imported in large quantities at a time when our cool stores were full of our own produce, and they were competing against the locally grown fruit. This appears to be a very poor argument for protection. Foreign apples are imported when New Zealand applies are in cold store, and the foreign apples compete with the latter. That apparently is not fair, for it docs not permit the owners of apples in the cold store to fix their own price, and so the Government is asked to keep out these apples. If foreign apples were kept out of the country by high protection what a rollicking good time the applemen would have in fleecing the public? There would be all sorts of reasons for “stabilising” the price of apples. The imported apples have to pay transport charges and a duty of a lb, and yet can compete successfully .with the locally grown. "Why? The imported apples—and they are mainly from the United States —are selected and graded and are of excellent quality; the New Zealand apples in cold store are second grade, or a grade lower than the million cases exported. That is one reason why apples are imported, notwithstanding the duty of l|d pei’ lb. And this competition is desirable, otherwise the price of apples to local consumers would be raised to a point where apples would be beyond the reach of all but the comparatively wealthy. There was a demand that the duty on grapes should be raised from Id to 3d per lb. because importations are increasing, and a few grapes are grown in the North Island. Other requests were that the duty on raspberries and gooseberries should be increased from Id to 2-1 d a lb, on passion fruit, apricots and peaches from Id to 2d, and that restrictions be placed on imports during the height of the season. The duty on cherries they wanted increased from Id to 4d per lb, or, alternatively, that restrictions should be placed on imports from Australia from November 20 to January 20. It would be clearer and more comprehensive to the public if the request were couched in plainer language. The deputation should have said: “Shut out Australian cherries from the market from November 20 to January 20 so that we may exploit the consumers, and when we have finished the Australians can be let in to get what they can.” It will be seen that there is no consideration for the consumers, who, if left to the tender mercies of the fruitgrowers, would have very little fruit to eat, for the price would be too high for most of us. But why do oui’ fruitgrowers want protection against fruit that has to travel many miles and is subject to many charges? It would be pertinent for the consumers to ask the growers whether they are conducting their business on right lines. Have the fruitgrowers paid fancy prices for their land, the same as the tomato growers, for the latter claim that some of the 7| miles of glass houses in Christchurch are built on land worth £5OO per acres? Assuming that the land and the glass houses together are worth £5OO per acre at current rate of interest £3O per acre must be obtained before they can be any profit, not counting the costs. People are not obliged to grow tomatoes,, or cherries, or raspberries or any other of the stone fruits or berries. They have engaged in the industry' because they could ea?*n a competence, and now they have apparently discovered that if they had the New Zealand market to themselves they would make fortunes, and seek the assistance of the Government to help them in taking advantage of the consumers.. Of course they do not put it so crudely as that. If a compacent Government would rercstrict 'imports and allow the growers to “stabilise” prices the industry would go ahead by leaps and bounds, but there is nothing said about the profits that would be scooped in. Fruit, and cheap but good fruit, is a necessity -of the people, whether Tieh .or poor, and it is hoped that 'the? G6vernmept , ' { will not lend’ it l ■

self to penalising the people. | Tariff walls are easily erected, but they are not as easily demolished.