Latest variety of apple bites back

By PHILIPPA STEVENSON

Between the lines

Some things are looking rotten in the apple barrel.

Last year, the market intelligence of monopoly marketer Enza seemed so poor it did not know its competitors were experiencing a bumper growing year as good as New Zealand's.

As a result, it called on local growers to supply more apples than ever and was well into the selling season before it realised the globe was awash with everything from bananas to watermelons.

This year - the first time its vice-like grip on exporting is being seriously loosened - its information from overseas and at home has been almost psychic. Even before the new export permits committee had finished its deliberations, Enza knew how much independent exporters were selling and to whom.

Enza's executive chairman, John McCliskie, said the company had anticipated 500,000 to a million rival export cartons but it looked like the figure would be nearer two million of a total 17 million crop.

This would damage the industry, hurt growers, put downward pressure on prices and reduce the premium enjoyed by Enza fruit, he said.

Enza's response was to renege on a deal to pay past suppliers $25 million in lump sums, on which many were depending for survival.

Affected growers have cried foul.

Enza's portrayal of the permits committee as wanton destroyers of New Zealand market standing also reeks.

First, the committee's criteria are tight. It must be satisfied applications are complementary to Enza and not likely to adversely affect its reputation in the relevant overseas market.

Secondly, the committee's membership is hardly Machiavellian.

It's chaired by Richard Janes, formerly of the deer industry and now chairman of Wools of New Zealand.

There's also Tradenz board member Graham Robertson, a former Federated Farmers president, Hastings orchardist Jim Scotland who was on the former Enza-run export consents committee, and experienced marketer David Palmer.

Unable to release detail because of applicants' right to confidentiality, the committee resorted to defending itself against an Enza-led onslaught by stating facts.

It had received applications for 7.4 million cartons, turned 2.4 million down flat, reduced other applications by 2.04 million and was still considering 1.9 million. Hardly reckless, as Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton said.

So, is this the fat, lazy, whinging Enza bumbling around the world's markets its critics have portrayed?

Or are we seeing the pre-emptive strikes and aggressive behaviour of a world-class marketer - but this time at home?

If it gets away with its plans, Enza will have wiped out a chunk of debt, positioned itself for the future, rewarded loyal suppliers and hurt competitors.

Fresh off the deregulated shelf, the new variety of apple may not be to everyone's taste. Perhaps because it has bitten its critics back.