THAMES VALLEY V. WAIKATO.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5036, 6 October 1926, Page 3

THAMES VALLEY V. WAIKATO.

' CTo the Editor.!

Sir, —The recent autocratic decision by Waikato-Hamilton interests to bring the Thames Valley dairying world under the complete domination of Hamilton control by absorbing our long-established Paeroia dairy office in the Hamilton office shows, how necessary it is for this district to wake up to the fact that we are feeing ■used as cats-paws to further the interests of the Waikatol-Hamilton area. A perusal of the report of the N.Z. Co-operative. Dairy Co.’s annual meeting yvill quickly show how, in a large number of important matters, the producers; of the Hauraki Plains and adjoining areas are being used to further large schemes for the benefit principally of Waikato farmers and Hamilton business men. To touch on one or two points. A large red herring is being dangled before the Waikato farmers of having special railway ■rates for manures (the life-blood of the Waikato), while whole-hearted support is being given by the dairy company to financing manures for its Waikato suppliers. This is surely a large sop to Waikato farmers. (Considering the progress opposition dairying cotnpanies to the N.Z.C.D.C. have made in the Waikato, perhaps it is needed.) But these concessions aje being made largely in part at the expense, of the Hauraki Plains suppliers. One small station, such as Walton, in the Waikato receives as much manure, I suppose, in a season as the whole vast area of the Hauraki Plainni. But as a special inducement to the Railway Department to grant cheap' freights for the Waikato users of manures, all dairy produce from those parts must be railed to Auckland although a large saving might be made by shipping same. Surely this, is) a tax on our districts; for the benefit of £ Waikato? The. writer of this has long been. a. supporter of co-operation for mutual benefits, but when it becomes one-sided he kicks. The paltry excuse recently put forth that closing the Paeroa district dairy office will be a big financial gajn to the suppliers of the company is so absurd as to be ridiculous, and the following figures may prove interesting. It has been variously estimated by company officials that a saving of from SlO0 1 to £7OO a year would accrue'to the 7000 suppliers of the company if the Paaroa office were closed. Taking the extreme figure of £7OO a year, this means a slaving to the average individual supplier of 2s. a year, while on the lower estimate of £lOO the direct saving to each supplier would reach the sum of about 3.y 2 d (good-bye worry). The actual saving, however, may be a loss ultimately, and certainly will be an enormous direct loss, to the suppliers of this end of the company’s] territory when our local suppliers have to take a day off, or longer, plus expenses, to visit Hamilton when on dary business.. There are other features also in connection with the retention of the district dairy office in Paeroa that have been ignored by the Hamilton rulers. It is significant that while aj large and growing opposition in dairy companies has grown in the Waikato and Hamilton areas to the N.Z.C.D.C., no such opposition has sprung up in the Hauraki Plains districts. Surely this points to contentedness and satisfaction of our local suppliers with our local office, which has long been run on efficient, courteous, and business lines, and which has always had a staff that has given general satisfaction. I suggest that our mutual interests require our dairy office to stay where it always has been, in the natural centre of the richest dairying district of New Zealand. Urgent steps are needed at once to protect our local interests and rights, and no delay should be made in having a general meeting of suppliers in Paeroa and framing a suitable petition from our much-despised mere SUPPLIER No. 26.