HONEY CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1930, Page 6

HONEY CONTROL

AN INTERVIEW. Mr J. Murdoch, of Ross, in a conversation with a “Guardian” representative, gave voice to a stinging criticism of the operations of the Honey Control Board in hampering the operations of the bee industry. Mr Murdoch said: Honey /control came into force in 1924, when the Honey Producers’ Association conceived the idea that if they could get a monopoly of all the honey exported horn New Zealand they would be able to dicate the price which the workers ol the Old. Country would luive to pay for their honey.

The Honey Control Board consists of three directors of the Honey Producers’ Association, so that. although one of these men is nominally a Government nominee on the Board, his interests are really for the Control Board. This means that bonev exporters who -differ from the bad management experienced with one shipment of honey handled by the Board have no redress. The Board have recently changed their London agents from Messrs A. J. Mills and Co., to Messrs 0. E. Morion and Co., who are really the agents of the Honey Producers’ Association. Why are /exporters not allowed the same privilege? If one Toolev street merchant gives a better price than another, why is an New Zealand exporter mot allowed .to accept the better price? If the Honey Producers’ Association are prepared to muddle along with a debt of over £16,000 from year to year, why should keeneer business men lie compelled to pool their produce, and accept any price the agents of the Honey Producers’ Association like to offer them? I. have no objection to the Honey Producers Association conducting their business in their own way, but the Control Board should be composed of men who are not influenced by the interests c the Honey Producers’ Association. There are hundreds of beekeepers in New Zealand who never had a vote for or against control. Those who voted for control were told shat it would be obtained if the ITonev Producers’ Association got .control all the honey exported from New Zealand. Influence was brought to bear on the then Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Hawketi). who said that the beekeepers of New Zealand were asking for the Honey ..Cont rol Act, but I could have told him'that it was only a section of the beekeepers who were asking for it for their own ends. After six years under control the same bad management exists; an attempt to control the local market was recently turned down by beekeepers, who are tired offjjinpty promises ot control and fixatimf'/ ot prices. The highest price offered by the Honey Producers’ Association to-day : s 56 per lb when honey in London is selling at Is Jcl and Is 9d per lb. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to where the difference goes. : Since control came into .force we never see the price of honey on the London market, cabled out to New Zealand in ihfi High Commissione’s report. Honey control to-day is best explained by the attitude of the irishman who offered to fight any man in the room under one condition. “What is the' condition?” “You hold him while I punch him.” The Control Board holds the beekeeper from obtaining a better market overseas. A beekeeper I know had an order for 100 cases of white honey at, a much better price than the Honey Producers’ Association were prepared to give, and when the Control Bo arc were asked lor a permit they said the honey would have to be shipped to the Board’s agents in London. Another beekeeper who intended visiting the Continent in his travels inquired the prospects of shipping direct, but he, was turned clown with tile c”rt reniy, “AH honey must go to t ie agents in London.’’ I see no why an exporter s’ouhl not, : ,e able to ship not, only, direct to the Continent ports, but to any : on in the United Kingdom. Today an exporter with 40 years’ experience is compelled by the Control Board to’employ men who have had, no experience as produce exporters. T have no reason to doubt that one of these' men is a good chemist, that the other knows all about making bricks, and the last man has the gift, so his father made him a teacher. Atclose of lust session Parliament voted these men £9OOO, supposed to be for advertising our honey in London. Representations were made to the Minister of Agriculture that, in spite of the Honey Producers’ Association • having a monopoly of all the honey exported from New Zealand, -they were in a very bad wav financially. As soon as this £9OOO of the taxpayers’ money was voted, the Chairman of the Control Board sailed for London, and, on arrival, transferred the agency to Messrs C. and E. Morton. This proves that a change .was necessary, as 1 proved in a previous letter, when 1 said that I had communication from A. -J. Mills, saying they were not prepared to buy honey on the New Zealand Government grade mark. 1 ask why spend £1001) per year on 'the Apiary Division when the grader’s certificate is valueless? If a lot of useless expense was cut out there is no reason why beekeepers to-day should not get 1 a net return of 6tl per 4b. My suggestion is that, now that the Government lias given £9OOO to assist the industry, it, should appoint the Presidents of the Chambers of Commerce, in the four centres to confer and recommend a policy for the Control Board to follow.