1.—1.0a.

36

[frank sisson.

Christchuroh, as to his elefinition about it. The part to which I refer is subclause (3) of clause 6, and it reads — " (3.) Notice: by the; Boarel of its intention to assume; control eif any fruit may be: give:n either by service on the owner of any such fruit eir em any person having possession thereof, eir by publication in any newspaper or newspapers in acceirdance with such conditions as may be prescribed. Eveuy such notice shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have effect according to its tenor." Mr. Harper is of the opinion that it is tho owner of the fruit who shoulel determine whether his fruit is for export or not, and not the Boarel. Mr. Harper is of opinion that a clause, should bo insorteel in the Bill to make it more definite, and he suggests a clause something to the: following effect. He says — " If there, should be any doubt about tho position, a clause as follows might, be: inserted (say, after clause 10), namely —' Nothing in clauses six, seven, eight, nine, and ten contained shall prevent the; owner or possessor of any fruit, of which notice to assume control has been give;n by the: Export Control Board, from selling and disposing of the same or any part thereof which may not be intended by such owner for export, for leical consumption in New Zealanel or in any provincial district in which the: provisions of Part 11 of this Act are not for the time being in force.' ' That is the alteration Mr. Harper suggests should be made in tho event eif tho Bill becoming law ; and, furthermore, it would make it more distinct. We also object to the packing ami grading being performed in central sfu:els whore: the conditions will be of a severe nature. It would inevitably mean that yeiu would have: to pack tho fruit in central sheds with a view to getting uniform grading. The grading weiuld be severe, and all such defects as oversize anel unelersize would be eliminated. At the: present time wc sell that class of fruit to hawkers in Christchurch, and it deie'S not gei em to the market, and the charges are roducoel to a minimum- that is, as regards cost for cases, cartage, and so em. There' is no cost, involved for packing, and no commission to pay, and Consequently the fruit is seilel by the hawkers at a very cheap rate. By this means the' people earning only limited income's are: in a position to buy fruit. The Bill wemlei not be, askeel for if it was not for the purpose of increasing the priee: eif fruit, because if the: present conditiem eif things continues, tho Nelson growers would be in the' same' position as they are in to-elay—that is to say, they cannot live:. Mr. Allen came to me and askeel me to withdraw my opposition to the: Bill, and I said that 1 woulel not. He said that he would flood us with Nelson fruit, and I told him they coulel not do that and pay all the charges that weiuld be: incurred, anel keep em doing it, because they woulel not get any return from the fruit after paying all the necessary charges involveel. Why sheiulel the' general public—that is, the people who are earning only from £3 to £4 per week —be barreel from obtaining cheap fruit? Because: the Nelson growers want us to put up the price of fruit to a ridiculous figure, I. do not see why the people shoulel not be allowed to buy cheap fruit. There is no other way to dispose of the inferior fruit at a profitable price, and consequently it would all be wasted. At the present time, in the event of a wet day, a man, his wife anel children, do all the; sorting and packing of the fruit, and in this way they eliminate: a lot of the expenses. Them, in oonnnection with the question of inferior fruit, elo you mean to tell me that if a shopkeeper once gets "bitten" with inferior fruit, that he will get "bitten" the second time? I submit that you do not want experts from the Government to tell you how to buy your fruit, because the man buying the fruit knows that he has to buy it anel sell it again in order to make a profit, and 1 submit that they will soon become experts if they have to make a profit on tho fruit they buy. Then again, in Christchurch a large quantity of fruit is sold by private; treaty, and in this way a large: number of growers have been working up profitable businesses after many years' hare! labour. If this Bill becomes law it means that that method will be wiped out, and all their pains and hard work, as well as years of experience, will all have be:en in vain. Another matter that has to be taken into consideration if these packing-sheds are established is that there is nothing to prevent the head man in. the packingsheds from receiving a little bribe from, certain people in connection with the packing and grading eif their fruit. Of course, Ave all have suspicions that corrupt practices will creep in, and this would have to be very thoroughly cemsidered. There is another point that 1 weiulel like to bring under the notice eif the Committee, and it is that Mr. Brash, Mr. Allen, and Colonel Gray seem to be running around New Zealand in connection with this matter, anel I want to know who is paying for that. If that money is coming out of the federation taxes, why should 1. along with others, have to pay that tax in order to allow these men to go around New Zealand tei fight this matter ? 4. The Committee has no knowledge as to that: you arc going away from the Bill ?—Well, sir, if this peioling system were in operation it would mean that our land-values would depreciate tremendously. So far as the Nelson land is concerned it is not worth ss. per acre, altheiugh they say it is worth £20 per acre. As I say, if the system of pooling were introduced, it would bring our land-values down tremendously, and as a matter of fact we would lose thousands and thousands eif pounds in that respect alone. Those, sir, are the: main objections that I have to the: Bill. I coulel go on longer, but it weiuhl emly be a question of repeating myself. I have letters from people, some of them from people in America, in regarel to the question of overproductiem, and one place that was mentioned particularly was Rogue River Valley. A Boarel was set, up, anel it discussed the whole matter, and it came to the: conclusion that if an orchard did not produce four hundred cases of export apples to the acre: the trees should be pulled up and burnt. If the production is anything like it has been during the last year then somebody will have to go to the wall. It is well recognized that if you ovorprexluce then somebody has to lose;. If it wore anything like, butter and meat, where we are dependent on the export and base eiur prices in New Zealand on that export, then it would be different. Some years we lose 2s. and 3s. per case on apples that are exported, anel, in consequence', the Government has to pay out from £10,000 to £15,000, and, of course, it does not like it. Why should erne area of grower?, in favoured districts be; askeel to help the growers in Nelson out of their unfortunate: position ? We did not ask them to go there. I may say that I was there; when the; first 100 acres were planted with fruit-trees, and I said that