G. T. HULL.]

25

I.—loa.

33. You think the Minister should, have no power to issue such a Proclamation ?—That is so. 34. If that were done do you not think there would be a danger of glutting the market in certain cases ?- I elo not think so. 35. You cannot get away from, the fact that both Australia and Tasmania may glut the market ? —As 1 told yeiu, sir, during that season we could have shipped, ten thousand cases from Australia ourselves as against New Zealand apples had we liked to take advantage of it. 36. Hon. Mr. Nosworthy.] Is it not a fact that the Australian growers are asking fe)r a guarantee similar to the: guarantee given to the New Zealanel growers ? lam not in a position to say. 37. lam in a position to tell you that it is so. With respect to the matter of the Government guarantee, is it not a fact that it enables the fruitgrowers to make arrangements a long time; ahead in so far as finance is concerned ? Do I understand that without the guarantee you people would be able to treat the: fruitgrowers as we:ll as they have been treated as a consequence of the Government guarantee ? No, sir. What we are: concerned with is advances against shipments, that is all. 38. As to whether or not my action was right or wrong in connection with the embargo coming into operation, your objection is that you were deprived for the time: being of operating? —As a taxpayer we have: a right to protest. We might, suggest this : supposing our livelihood was dependent on this business, at one stroke of the Minister's pen we were cut eiff. That is the attitude I personally take up. 39. The Government is acting for the majority of the; people, anel it does not consider the individual, because its duty is to consider the; community as a whole ? Quite so. 40. Under the meat control and the dairy control it was the vested interests that were: opposed to the producers, After all, under"this Bill the producers will have to look after their own interests the Government will have: practical men as its representatives, but it is left to the growers themselves as to the marketing of their produce, anel it will not be the concern of the Government ?---I think you are, absolutely right in the interests of the growers, and if I may come back to the subject again I think I might suggest probably Dr. Reakcs will bear my statement out in this respect —if it is going to be a good sale we will stanel aside; ; we will not approach anybody with a view to negotiating a sale. lam satisfied in the: particular case in question it was not a good sale. 41. You think if you had the* handling of the South American sales you would have done better ? —Yes, 1 think wo would have done very much better. 42. You might have eione, but I woulel not say you would ?—lt did not turn out just as you expected it would. All I can say is that our shipments were always handled in a businesslike manner anel returns made: promptly to the growers. As to whether the particular shipment in question was a payable one, only the Department will be able to give'information on that point. 43. Mr. Corrigan.] Have you anything to do with selling c.i.f. between New Zealanel and Great Britain. ?—No. 44. I understand the apples that were shipped to South America were sold under c.i.f. conditions ? — So I am informed, and they were also subject to arrival in gooel condition. 45. Quite so. Have yeiu had any experience with c.i.f. sale's in the: Old Country ? —No. 46. That is, from. New Zealand ? No. I may say that all our business has been done purely as brokers. The firms I represent are: not merchants —their business is brokerage. 4-7. The reason I asked that is this : c.i.f. selling to America is very unsatisfactory —if the, markets are good there there: is no complaint, but if they are bad there is always complaint; and they do not give a. guarantee they can put up the: money and sell it f.o.b, ?—I think you have hit the nail on the head in that respect.

Friday, sth September, 1924. H. S. Izard examined. (Nei. 9.) 1. The Acting-Chairman.] Whom do you represent ? —I am president of the Auckland Fruitgrowers' Council, and I am also the Auckland member on the directorate of the New 'Zealand Fruitgrowers' Federation. I practically represent two thousand growers in the Auckland Province, which province: contains, I suppose, the largest number of fruitgrowers of any part of New Zealanel. The matter of this Control Board, both for export control and local control, has been discussed by the various associations in the Auckland District, also by the Council of Fruitgrowers, and in no instance: has there been any adverse vote against either of the-portions of the Bill. As regards the export-control portion eif it, it may be said that wo Auckland people are not largo exporters, anel therefore: we: should not have to say very .much on the question of whether we should have export control or not. Tn the past Auckland has exported in each year a fair quantity of fruit — 2. Mr. Forbes.] What is a "fair quantity" ? -Last year I must admit that we exported only something under one thousand cases. That is to be accounted, for for three reasons : one is that we have at our door in Auckland City the best market for fruit of any part of New Zealand ; secondly, we had only a medium crop of apples ; and, thirdly, we lost last year a large line of export which we had had hitherto —that is to say, the export to Honolulu. Certain heavy restrictions regarding diseases prohibit us from exporting from Auckland to Honolulu any fruit until we can control one of the pests which the fruit industry has, and that is the mealy bug. That export used to run from anything between ten thousand and fifteen thousand cases. We' Auckland people lost that last year. I said just now that the growers in my district are in favour of e:xport control. They are fully in favour of it, but they want, as other districts want, that there should be, no pooling of fruit between any two or more provinces. They elo not object to the: pooling of fruit in any one province. One

4—l. 10a.