SHOULD THE HONEY CONTROL BOARD BE ABOLISHED?

Hokitika Guardian, 20 November 1930, Page 2

SHOULD THE HONEY CONTROL BOARD BE ABOLISHED?

The Chairman, Progress League, Hokitika. Sir, —The report of the Chairman ot the New Zealand Honey Export Control Board has just come to band. He has returned from his second trip Home and judging by results his time was wasted, expense was added to an already heavy burden which beekeepers will feel in reduced returns for their labour next season. He says: “Our business is affected by the present bad world trade conditions. . . . no sign of improvements when I left Home. . . . One sign is the bolding up of business owing to the want of confidence. . . . Buying is only from band to mouth. . . . United Kingdom imports in 1929 were five thousand tons, as practically the only free market, the United Kingdom has become the dumping ground of the world.” Why Control? New Zealand beekeepers were told that Control would solve all their difficulties. What a sad awakening to find they were buiklin" castles in the air. He saw' samples of honey offered as low as 28s p~r cent, then why not send New Zealand lower grade dark honeys, such as Waikato, instead of last season shinning Westland’s white honev to Auckland to b° b’encUd with low«r grades of lionnv. Blending honev Rills the aroma, adds expense in labour and gives a lower return for the best quality. T have seen Tmnerinl Bee blended honev both ill Christchurch and Wellington (returned bv customers), lying on the gro rt ers shelves. The Control Board is controlled bv the Directors of the Honev Producers Assocint'on and since the Government voted £9.000 of the taxpayers money to advertise honev (Imperial Bee) it is to be hoped that the policy of marketing New Zealand honev will !e nlaced on sound (hns ness hke lin The Honev Control Act, 1924. made provision for exporters of honey cairving on the export o f hoimv prior to the coming into force of this Act to continue to do so. but as the Directors of the Control Board were also Directors of the Honey Producers Association they refused to allow an” opposition honey to be exported against tile blended “Imperial Bee” honey. The Control Board also demanded that all honey must be shipped to one Agent in Tooley Street, London, naturally other Tooley Street merchants preferred to buy Californian honey. One result we find in the last Balance Sheet of the Honey Producers’ Association is that at the end of 1929 there is on hand in London 337 tons of 1928 honey. This proves my contention that the London Agents of the Honey Producers’ Association cannot blend, pack and sell each season’s export inside the year nor will the Control Board allow any beekeeper or merchant export honey to any other firm than the agents of the Honey Producers’ Association. When Messrs A, J. Mills and Co, were the agents they refused to 'buy honey on the grade mark of the New Zealand Government graders, If the Government graders certificate is of no value for export to London why spend £4,000 per year in the upkeep of the Apiaries Division? The expense of such a small t urn * over in the export of honey (last year’s trading account gives g total of £3509 17s 4d) i,s more than any legitimate business can stand, When our New Zealand exporters are prepared to handle our honey on a commission of 21 per cent—Why Control? Included in last year’s Balance Sheet appears an item—Expenses L.M. Scheme £2BO os. This refers to the attempt of the Honey Producers’ Association to capture through their Local Marketing Scheme the sale ancl fixation of prices of all honey on the New Zealand market, The beekeepers would have none of it except having to pay up. I believe if beekeepers had another opportunity of voting for or against Control, provided every New Zealand beekeeper had a vote, the result would he the abolition of the Hongy Control Board, I am, etc., JOHN MURDOCH.