AUCKLAND PROTEST.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 264, 6 November 1937, Page 19

AUCKLAND PROTEST.

AGAINST BOARD'S SCHEME. REPLY TO MR. KNOWLES. • A protest against Mr. Knowles' statement was made later by Mr. A. G. Hackett, on behalf of the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee, of which he is chairman. "Poultrymen and particularly commercial poultry farmers have been far from satisfied with the work of the New Zealand Poultry Board," be said. "Thia body first drew the attention of the Government to the question of egg marketing," stated Mr. Hackett, "and pressed for producer control. There is no doubt that the scheme in the back of their minds was identical to that at present in operation In New South Wales. This, then, was the general principle to which the poultry keeper had committed himself—a definite scheme of producer control. "To-day, however, we find that the Government will not consider the working of central floors under the control of the producer. It has been stated quite definitely that if central floors are brought into operation the Government, and the Government alone, will be responsible for their management. "It should be fairly obvious, therefore, that some alternative scheme should be evolved. That the producers in Auckland did so is well known and we make no apology for such action. Scheme Thoroughly Examined. "One of New Zealand's biggest producers was responsible for drawing up a tentative outline and on the request of its sponsor it was thoroughly examined and studied from every angle bv a sub-committee of the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee. This committee, after careful thought, gave their approval and the scheme in its skeleton outline was presented to two well attended meetings of producers held at Henderson and Papatoetoe. "At these meetings the scheme was almost unanimously supported and a petition, which was later presented to

the Hon. W. Nash, was signed by pro-! ducers controlling in the* aggregate, 90,000 fowls. "The scheme, which has now received the unanimous approval of the producer members of the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee, of which body it will he remembered Mr. Knowles was chairman, was received with great, interest by Mr. Nash, who stated that he was very glad to receive the views of the commercial poultrykeeper. "The poultry industry i& one which is extremely difficult to organise. The producer members of the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee have no chance of any personal gain if the scheme they support were to come into being. They, in my opinion, stand four square to the industry and are honestly working for its betterment.

Figures In Question. "It is a great pity -that Mr. Knowles, in issuing what he terras his note of warning, has seen /it to introduce figures and statement* that will obviously not bear careful scrutiny. Firstly let me state that, of the 58.447 poultrykeepers quoted by Mr. Knowles as operating in the Auckland Province there are only approximately 600 registered as keeping more than 100 birds. As we have it from the pen of the secretary of the New Zealand Poultry Boafd, who must obviously be working with the full approval of his board, that it iri considered that ortly those managing 100 fowls or more should have any vote on marketing matters. It is clear, therefore, that the majority of the poultrymen most concerned have already approved the scheme based on the successful working of the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee.

Mr. Knowles' record of service with the Marketing Committee was an enyiable one, and had he continued to work in the interests of Auckland producer* instead of being drawn over to a scheme which emanated from the South Island, I am sure that producers would have given him their wholehearted support.

This I am sure they cannot now do. Central floors under Government control will bring not only greatly added costs to the h'diistrv, but many other problem* which will seriously affect the position of the po'iltry.man.

Mr. Knowles must know that the only alternative to the Auckland Egg Marketing Committee'* proposal is State control of the industry, and to this the majority of producers are strongly opposed.