FRUIT CANNING.

Evening Star, Issue 21751, 20 June 1934, Page 8

FRUIT CANNING.

The Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association discussed yesterday the restoration of shipping services between South Island ports and Melbourne. The centralisation of the trans-Tasman connection in Wellington and Auckland is, we suppose, a matter of policy for the shipping company chiefly interested, but a rather novel view was introduced yesterday by Mr R. Duncan, who said that it had been permitted by the Government for far too long, and at a later stage he moved that the Government be asked to reorganise the present shipping services between Australia and New Zealand so that there would be a service between Melbourne and the South Island. It is difficult to see in what way or with what warrant the Government could intervene, since its only direct interest in the matter is its payment of the mail subsidy. It is to be trusted that there is no suggestion that the State should enter the ship owning and operating business. Australia’s brief experience in that line ought to serve as a warning beacon. However, the association declined to commit itself, and the motion was allowed to lapse on the ground that the revision of the Customs tariff was a near probability, and until it was seen on what lines this would proceed it would be premature to an*ange for increased shipping facilities. In view of another piece of business transacted at the same meeting yesterday it was perhaps just as well that the Manufacturers’ Association did not commit itself over the shipping question. For, on the complaint of members interested in the fruit canning industry that dumping by Austi-alia was being carried on here, it was decided that the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation be asked to take the matter up with the Government. This means, one supposes, that some addition to the present 35 per cent, duty on canned fruits is to be sought when tariff revision is in progress. This is rather a lamentable admission for the New Zealand canning industry to make, for costs here and in Australia should not vary greatly, .and the explanation given is that 11 a Government abroad is making an organised move against the industry in this country.” That statement was made at a deputation of Otago and Canterbury fruitgrowers to the Minister of Lands during Winter Show Week in Dunedin. The Government referred to is doubtless the Commonwealth Government, and the allegation is that the canning industry is so heavily subsidised that overseas dumping is practised to such an extent that canners in New Zealand find it cheaper to close down and execute orders by buying the imported article, while the prospect before orchardists is that of eventually walking off their holdings. Undoubtedly the Commonwealth Government used to subsidise the Australian canning industry. The Australian ‘ Year Book ’ for 1931 indicates that the year 1927-28 was the last in which a canned fruit bounty was paid, and at 9d to Is per dozen tins of 30oz each it totalled only £4,731. In the 1933 ‘ Year Book ’ the canned fruit industry does not appear at all among the list of those receiving a Commonwealth bounty, though it is possible that individual States may afford direct or indirect help in such matters as freight concessions or rebates on the artificially high price of sugar in Australia. It is doubtful, however, if the States, with their straitened finances, could afford very tangible help to an industry the annual value of whose output (including jams) approximates five million pounds.

Victoria and Tasmania are the principal canning and preserving States, with Queensland also prominent because of her pineapple production. The competition New Zealand chiefly feels is in respect of canned peaches and apricots and pears, and from what was stated at the deputation early this month the particular source of dumping seems to he the Goulbnrn Valley, in Victoria, where three factories arc re-

sponsible for rutlicr more than half Australia’s total output of canned fruit. Possibly the most famous of these is the Shcppartou Fruit Preserving Company. It is a co-operative concern, most efficiently managed, probably because the fruitgrower shareholders are content to leave the business side of affairs to a remarkably successful manager. Its last balance-sheet discloses net profits of nearly £20,000, of which less than £IO,OOO was appropriated for dividend and bonus at 12* per cent., as against 15 per cent, distributed the previous year. The report speaks of curtailed profits because of reduced sales overseas and intense competition on tho Australian market. If we turn to another well-known Australian concern, with headquarters in Hobart and branches elsewhere, including Nelson, New Zealand, one finds its pound shares quoted at 04s 6d, so it does not appear that Australian canneries experienced the same difficulty as New Zealand concerns in doing profitable business. It seems unfortunate that, at the very moment New Zealand, Federal, and State experts are discussing at Canberra relaxation of existing embargoes and restrictions on fruit and vegetables between New Zealand and Australia, it has been thought advisable to seek the imposition of fresh ones. Neither is it opportune to move in such a direction just when efforts are being made to increase shipping facilities between the two countries.