FRUIT CONTROL BILL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18221, 4 November 1924, Page 8

FRUIT CONTROL BILL.

*— LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DISCUSSION. (WBCIII TO "TH» PttW.") WELLINGTON. November 3. In the Legislative Council to-night the Government was accused of having introduced the Fruit Control Bill at the instance of the Nelson growers, and the treatment of one section of those engaged in the industry was described as an outrage. The Bill was read a second time and was committed. The Hon. Sir Francis Bell said that owing to objections from Otago, which had a good svstem of its own, it was proposed bv Clause 4 that the Minister should exclude from the operation of the Bill anv provincial district on receipt of a iieiition signed by not less than 70 per cent, of the growers. This was to give Otago. the only objector, the right to exclude itself. He believed that the 70 per cent, was not quite satisfactory, but he hoped the Council would not insist on any objection it might raise, as the proportion had been arrived at after careful consideration and conference. The object of all these controls was to have universal control. Exclusion meant competition between the Board in Otago and the Fxoort Control Board, and that would create great difficulty. It ought not to bo made too easy to set'up a competine Board. He sympathised with the Otago members who thought thev would not scrape up /0 per cent, of the voters, but if they did not there could not bo such very strong exception to what was proposed. Otaeo would not suffer anv injury through coming into the scheme. The Hon. M. Cohen said Otago obieeted to anvthing of the kind proposed in th* Bill. Moat, dairy produce, and other things already were controlled, and he would not be surprised if soon the Chinese gardeners came along with a raiuest for a pool. This was a Nelson Bill from first to last. There was no need for control. The London market would take all the fruit we could send if it was of good quality, and as for shipping, that was settled in ; Australia irrespective of what any Board here did. The Hon. John MacGreeor considered tlv-ifc what had occurred was an illustration of the danger of the Government intorferine so freouently with industry-. The Government had eot so used to the idea -that it had done this at the ins+ance of Nelson. The war in which Otago was being dealt with was an outrage. That Otago and Canterbury should be asked to content themselves with one representative on tlie Board, when nearly half the fruit exported came from their districts, was wrong. Otago bad-a perfect system for dealing with its own export. He did not believe* that Otago ever would send a single apple to South America. They would stick'to London. He moved that the percentage should be 60 instead of 70. , x . Mr MacGregor's amendment was defeated bv 17 votes to 6. The BUI was reported from Committee without amendment, and the third reading was set down for to-morrow ,