Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MENACE TO GROWERS

SOUTH AFRICAN JAM CRISIS IN FRUIT INDUSTRY The harmful effect on the business of Dominion fruitgrowers tlt~ough the exploitation of the New Zealand market by South African jam man ufacturers was pointed out to the DTinister of Education, the Hon. H. Atmore, yesterday by a deputation representing growers, jam-makers and fbuit merchants. It asked the Minister to use his influence in obtaining a protective duty. IMPORTATIONS had reached competitive proportions only during the past 18 months to two years, it was stated, and a guarantee was given the Minister that the price of locallymade jams would not be increased with the imposition of a duty. Mr. S. W. House, president of the Auckland Provincial Fruitgrowers’ Council, Ltd., said that whereas in past years the growers had been able*, to d;spose of their surpluses to the jam manufacturers, this year there was no market. Formerly there had been inquiries for all the marmalade oranges available, byt today, with the poor demand, there was a glut on the market. The importation of jams from South Africa was stifling the growers. Quoting figures supplied by one firm, Mr. House said that the loss to New Zealand in one season only through this competition was £3,500 for fruit; £SOO boxes, £2OO for labels, £2,000 for refined sugar, £IOO tor hewn coal, and £1,500 for factory labour, a total loss of £7,800, all of which would have been spent in New Zealand. The figures, said Mr. Frank M. Hills, of Thompson and Tlills, were his, and they were very conservative estimates. It was pitiable when the growers came to the firms to ask them to take their fruit. For the. first time in many years the factory was working short time, and there was a big carry-over from the previous season. The manufacturers could not enter into contracts nowadays with the growers to take their fruit. Doubtless the firms could change over to other lines of business, leaving them with, the loss only of their profit, hut the growers would then be in a serious position. Three other manufacturing firms intended making replesentations on the question. Answering Mr. House, Mr. Ilills said that in past seasons his firm had taken all the stone fruit that it could get, but this year it could not take any, because of the South African competition. Mr. Harvey Turner, managing direcurner and Growers, Ltd., said that there was no demand as in former years for Poorman oranges in the * v outh Island. There should be a duty cn South African jams, as Australian products were subject to a duty of 2d pound.

The Minister said that the question kould receive careful consideration by Cabinet.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19290607.2.127

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 683, 7 June 1929, Page 11

Word Count
448

MENACE TO GROWERS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 683, 7 June 1929, Page 11

MENACE TO GROWERS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 683, 7 June 1929, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert