H.—44a.

The representative of Sanford Ltd. complained • that this firm's share in the allocation of supplies was not consistent with the magnitude of their business, and he asserted that the firm received no more than the allocation to small retail-shops. This was denied by the officers in charge of the depot, and the allocation list shown to the Committee proved that Sanford Ltd. were receiving as high an allocation as was desirable for any one firm to obtain. It was then suggested by this witness that as the present supplies are inadequate a considerably greater sum of money should be made available for oyster-cultivation. The third witness, a retailer and restaurateur, complained that a competing restaurant was receiving a greater allocation than he was. This allegation was investigated and it was found to be correct, the allocation being based on a percentage basis of the number of sacks of oysters taken per week when supplies were plentiful. In explanation, it must be stated that much of the demand in times of shortage is false and is caused by small dealers trying to obtain an extra sack at the depot price, 245. (and sometimes succeeding), so that they can turn it over to a larger concern at 355. to 405., a clear profit of lis. to 16s. per sack solely for delivery. Another case of apparent favouritism in allocation was investigated personally by members of the Committee, but it was found that the person complained of was only getting his fair allocation from the Auckland depot. This dealer, however, had an arrangement with firms outside Auckland to order oysters which they did not require for their own purposes and to sell them to him at an increased price plus railage. The high cost of these oysters to this dealer was offset by his particular trade, and by the means outlined above he could be assured of a plentiful supply of oysters at times when other restaurants were either in short supply or out of oysters altogether. The evidence of these three witnesses has been summarized to establish the impartiality with which the Department's depot in Auckland is administered. The fourth witness, the owner of a number of small islands off the Coromandel coast, sought the right to cultivate oysters on the foreshores of these islands. He proposed that the right should be limited to the owners of the land abutting the foreshore, and that such owners should be licensed and pay royalty. By this method he contended the production of oysters would be increased. The Department's attitude towards private enterprise in this connection is summed up in an appendix on pages 83 and 84 of the report of the fisheries section of the Marine Department's annual report for the year ending 31st March, 1929. While this Committee does not think that there should be any leasing of foreshores for oyster-cultivation in those areas from which oysters are being obtained by the Government, and on which public money has been or will be spent on cult'vation and protection, it is of opinion that settlers in districts where the oyster-beds are never worked should have the right to lease the foreshore abutting their land for the purpose of cultivating oysters, subject, of course, to such regulation with regard to marketing as to prevent malpractice, such as the sale of oysters stolen from the Government beds. The areas we have in mind in particular are Hokianga Harbour, Manukau Harbour, Tauranga Harbour, Ohiwa Harbour, and any other bays or inlets not at present worked by the Government. There can be no just cause for the prevention of oyster-culture in areas which the Government does not intend to use. In the Hauraki Gulf, including all the coast-line round to Thames and the islands in the Gulf, Whangarei Harbour, Kaipara Harbour, Bay of Islands, and perhaps Whangaroa Harbour, the Government has sufficient space in which to carry out its policy and to absorb to advantage any moneys which are available for cultivation and protection. The best advantage will be obtained by doing the cultivation work in large contracts, thus lessening the cost, and ensuring sufficient work in one place to warrant special protection. North Auckland. In the North Auckland district very little interest was shown in the question of oyster cultivation and picking. At Eussell one witness had a scheme for utilizing unemployed labour on the oyster-beds on a long-term plan. Under this scheme coastal areas were to be allotted to selected unemployed, who were to be maintained from the Employment Promotion Fund while planting the oysters and awaiting their growth to the stage where they would become income-producing. The weakness of this proposal lies in the fact that the men would have to wait for six years before there would be any financial return from the sale of oysters, and there would be other administrative difficulties. One of these difficulties is that the prior right of settlers to the leasehold of the abutting land would arise where the leasing of foreshores for private cultivation of oysters was agreed to. At Whangaroa there is a nice crop of young (one-and two-year old) oysters, but if this fine fixation is to be saved it will require protection until it reaches maturity. This fixation of oyster-spat is credited to some oyster-bearing rock shipped from Russell. If this spat is saved there would be a full-time job for one man in protecting and cultivating the beds. Though no evidence was tendered in the Whangarei district, the same remarks apply, because good beds are going back for want of adequate supervision and attention., "'The Mangonui witnesses complained bitterly of the action of the Government in allowing the licensed pickers to clean up the beds in this port twenty-nine years ago (before the Government took over the direct supervision of the picking operations). Their claim was that these beds should be replanted to keep faith with the residents, and an assurance was given that local bodies would co-operate in the matter of protection during the initial stages of the cultivation work. The Mangonui Harbour could be used successfully for oyster-cultivation, but so much scope exists for development in the more convenient localities where staffs are already stationed that, with the exception of the Committee's recommendation in favour of private leasing of beds as applied to this harbour, we have no further recommendation to make.

39