FRUIT CONTROL BILL

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9849, 30 October 1924, Page 5

FRUIT CONTROL BILL

DECISION THAT IT PROCEED

INTERESTING DEBATE,

WELLINGTON, Oct. 29. The Local Bills committee reported on the Fruit Control Bill, recommending that it be allowed to proceed with amendments.

Mr S'idey opposed the proposal to submit the question whether a fruit crop be exported or reserved for local consumption to a Dominion-wide leferendum. This, lie understood, was one of the committee’s •’recommendations. He objected to fruit-growers in Otago, for instance, being-placed in the hands of those of Nelson, as would he the case if such a referendum were taken, because Nelson would favor export, while Otago prepared to organise its local market. Air Witty thought the Bill had lit-; tie chance of' passing. It was the first measure of control applied to any perishable foodstuffs and would not operate in the growers’ interest, while it certainly would result in the consumer having to pay more -for lus fruit. If the Government guarantee were desired it should be made a matter of provincial application. The whole country should not he penalised for the benefit of a particular district. Air Buddo thought the Bill nothing more than a unnecessary: piece or grand-motherly legislation. He suggested that the Bill he made to apply only to the province of Nelson. The Alinister for Agriculture pointed out that every province already had a chance to say under the Bill whether it desired the measure or not. If any province did not want the Bill it would not be forced upon Mat district. Tho Bill, as drafted, was needed; hut, if any of the suggestions made by the critics were adopted, the measure would become useless and baa he better scrapped. There was iu existence already a private scheme of control of fruit for market :tud export under “pooling” conditions more drastic than anything proposed in the Bill. The fruit exported under control would go on to the London market, not simply as New Zealand fruit hut as Otago or Nelson fruit as the case may be. Mr Hudson said many Nelson fruitgrowers were in desperate case and the Bill provided a means to enable them to hold on to their farms, it lim Bill were thrown out numbers or fruit-growera must walk oil their lands. "

Mr Veitcli thought the Bill should he allowed to proceed, but the interests of the producers must he considered. There should he some hunt to control however. Aicat and dairy produce had already been controlled. There was talk of making a similar provision for Kauri gum and soon there would be nothing lett uncontrolled except cauliflowers, and then they might to see a deputation from the* Chinese gardeners at Utaki a siting for control! Air Holland said effective marketing was the urgent question of the hour. -The average grower in Nelson, lie found, received about a farthing pevpound, while in Y> ellingtou, just across the water, the same fruit- cost the consumer sixpence to e.gutpenee a pound. Growers would he glad to get a penny a pound all the year round. Legislation should ensure a fair- return to the grower and allow the consumer to get supplies at a more reasonable price. Air Atmore hoped the Bill would he permitted to proceed. All districts were interested in this matter, and all fruit-growers must combine and organise methods of shipping and marketing. Growers could not individually approach the highly organised shipping" concerns with any hope of obtaining favorable transport charges. Mr AfcKav saw no real objection to the BUI. He understood a considerable quantity of fruit- would he exported from Hawke’s .Bay* this season and there was full opportunity tor provisions to decide for themselves on the matter of control. The Hon 1 . G. J. Parr said Auckland growers almost unanimously favored the; general principles «?f the Bill . ’Air J. AlcDickson said the Otago people opnosed the Bill unless if-per-mitted, local option on both local marketing and the expodt of ±ruit. The report was tabled. —P.A.

POSITION AS TO EAST COAST

WELLINGTON, Oct. 29. Hie Fruit Control Bill was reportccl to tho House to-day witli nirieiidments made by the Agricultural Committee. .. . Dua provision has been insertecthat reference to the Auckland district shall not affect the coxmties or Mntakaoa, Wainpu, Uawa, Waikohu, Cook amlWairoa and the borough of Gisborne. , , The control of export will not be operative until brought into force by proclamation and a proclamation shall, not ho issue until a majority of the producers have voted in favor of it. No one will be able to vote unless he has an orchard from which 25 easesot fruit are exported m any one of the three years preceeding 1924. A. majoritv will decide the issue. ' There is a new provision that tne Board shall not, save with the consent 0 V tho owners, pool for sale any fiut produced in one provincial district with fruit produced in any other provincial district. . Of the members appointed as s,.cnessors of the first members of, the Board, one shalljbe appointed for one year, one for two years and one for three years. The number of years For which" these members are appointed shall be determined by lot.—Special.