FRUIT CANNING.

Evening Star, Issue 21753, 22 June 1934, Page 12

FRUIT CANNING.

TO TH* KOITOR. Sir,—With reference to the leader in your issui of June 20, dealing with this subject, we would point out that some of your figures are incorrect. As far as subsidies for fruit, canning are concerned, the following are subsidies given in reports printed and published for the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia;— 1920- £92,000 1921- 358,000 1922- 230,000 1923- 133,176 1924.-25 ... 12,393 1925-26 ... ... ... 16,650 T 926-27 5,787 1937-28 42.753 *1928-29 ’ *1929-30 *1930-31 1931- 274,726 1932- (allocated) 298,469 * At the moment wo have not the figures for these years. The ‘ Evening Star ’ figures of £4,731 for 1927-28 appear wrong, as may be seen from the above figures. In all,- the people of Australia tip to the year 1929 had paid upwards of £2,000,000 to encourage fruit canning in Australia, and obviously this has a tremendous bearing on the whole subject. The above figures, cover both domestic and export rebates, because in some instances we have not the necessary details to separate them; but, in any case, no factory can receive a bonus on part of its output without affecting the whole of it. The points that we made in regard to New Zealand imports of Australian canned fruits were all from Australian sources and easily checked; they were:—

1. On two occasions at least when those responsible for preparing the budget of possible sales (and consequently possible production) had. published their figures, the canneries were told that practically double the proposed output must bo canned. We say that under such circumstances the necessary sales must be made regardless of cost.

2.-Then we produced actual costs from Commonwealth Government publications, and showed that exports to New Zealand were being sold at less than these costs.

3. In March, 1934, the ‘ Shcpparton Advertiser ’ stated that the joint indebtedness of two canneries in the Goulburn Valley was in the vicinity of £300,000,, the whole of which was guaranteed by the Government of Victoria. We have no figures for the cannery at Leeton (N.S.W.) since a Government report dated March 22, 1929, when the accumulated losses were stated as £363,727. You will note particularly that these figures show the position:after the canneries have received their subsidies. New Zealand lives next door to a country which in a comparatively few years has made a gigantic business of fruit canning by means of enormous subsidies. Naturally the difficulties ofi selling this enormous new production are almost insuperable, because the world was well supplied with canned fruits before Australia started; and it is quite evident that no adjacent country can keep out this deluge by ordinary means.—l am, etc., W. Stevenson, Director (pro Irvine and Stevenson’s St. George Company Ltd.). June 22, A REBUILDING SCHEME. TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —I would like to suggest a scheme whereby the building trade would be given a fillip in the right direction, reducing unemployment. In the four chief cities there are thousands of houses that have been made of wood and are over fifty years old. The great majority of these are unsanitary and are not fit to live in, yet they are let to the poorest class we have with us, and are owned as a rule by sons or daughters of our early settlers, who have not the money to pull them down and erect new houses in tlieir places. The scheme I suggest to tlie Government is that it should make a list of all these houses, have them condemned, and advance the rebuilding money at, say, 3 per cent., 2 per cent, of this to be interest aud 1 per cent, to repay loan. This money could be advanced by the Reserve Bank and backed by the country as a whole. The cheap rate of interest could be used to fix a low rent suitable to the poorest classes, and at the same time assist in the general progress of the community.—l am, etc., R. Walker. June 20. “ WILL LEAVE THE CHAIR.” TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —One must view with disgust the answer of the chairman of the Otago Education Board and the supine passiveness of the board members when the chairman declined to have his actions questioned when he was merely asked to give reasons for adopting a certain action recently. Personally, I do not know what actuated the “ storm in a tea-cup,” but I am certainly of the opinion that, when a chairman of our Education Board resents being . asked for reasons of his actions, his proper place is out of the chair. Mr Wallace may have given long ami faithful service to the board, but he should ever remember that, after all, he is merely a member, pledged to work in harmony with his co-delegates. Mr Wallace should also realise that Britishers have a habit of objecting to “ Star Chamber ” methods, therefore he should not attempt an emulation of Herr Hitler.— I am, etc., Open Book. June 21. DRAINS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The Drainage Board deserves to be congratulated on the efficient manner in which it is cleaning out the drains in the Surrey-Richmond street area. A close examination of this job goes to prove that it is long overdue, and should prevent any • further flooding in this district. Caii you, through your columns, persuade the powers that he to go a step further while they are on the job and pay a little attention to the foul state of the ditches on the south-east side of Surrey street? At present these ditches are full of an evilsmelling liquid, something akin to liquid manure. Two men and two shovels could make quite a good clean-up in half a day, thereby relieving the minds of the anxious mothers whose children play in the vicinity.—l am, etc., A Resident. June 21.