LEGAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23941, 7 May 1943, Page 4

LEGAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN

Canterbury Honey Producers ATTITUDE TO MARKETING (P.S.S.) AUCKLAND, May 6. The action of the Canterbury beekeepers in refusing to supply the Internal Marketing Department with honey was discussed at a meeting of the South Auckland branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association. Mr F. Stoupe, of the Internal Marketing Department, said that legal action would be taken against the Canterbury producers. Mr W. Nelson, chairman of the Honey Producers’ Board, said it was the duty of all producers to support the Government’s honey marketing scheme. He pointed out that the honey producers were receiving special concessions of benzine, tyres, and sugar, and were even being given exemption from military service, The Canterbury producers were not only jeopardising their own interests, but were jeopardising the prestige and standing of their own association. Mr Nelson said. The question was whether the producers’ own interests were to take priority over the requirements of the armed forces and prisoners of war. No evidence had been produced to show that the Canterbury demand for an increased price was justified.

The president, Mr F. D. Holt, proposed that the branch dissociate itself from the direct action taken by the Canterbury producers in failing to comply with the regulations. Mr E. W. Sage said that without knowing the full facts no branch was justified in censuring another. Such a resolution would only cause dissension in the association. A member suggested that higher penalties should be imposed for breaches of the regulations. The Canterbury people, he said, would make handsome profits as the result of their action and could well afford to pay the fines.

Mr P. A. Hillary said Waikato producers could get 2s a pound for their honey by independent action. He supported the motion.

Mr Sage strongly disagreed with the remarks made by Mr Hillary and left the meeting. The motion that the South Auckland branch dissociate itself from the action taken by Canterbury was carried.

AGAINST CONTROL IN ANY FORM

BEEKEEPERS EMPHATIC

Beekeepers who assembled in Christchurch yesterday at a convention called by the Canterbury branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association decided emphatically against marketing control in any form. After a long and desultory debate, Mr T. E. Pearson, of Barfield, in order to test the ieeling of the meeting, moved that it favour the principle of control. This was rejected, likewise another motion from Mr Pearson favouring control for the war period. “We have to decide one way or the other,” said Mr Pearson, when introducing his original motion. “Otherwise we are wasting our time.” The chairman (Mr W. B. Bray); Do you intend this just as a war measure? Mr Pearson: No. The chairman: For all time?— Yes.

“We cannot get away from the fact that we have been under control since 1924,” said Mr H. E. Geddas, of Rotorua, “and I for one believe that we will never be completely free from it.” Nevertheless, he thought such a resolution, if published, would have an unfortunate effect. “Why should we be called upon to make greater sacrifices than any other section of producers?” he asked.

On a division, 23 voted against the motion, and 10' in its favour. Mr Pearson then moved that: “This meeting is in favour of control for the war period.” “This is the only possible way out,” he said. i“We have to accept some measure of control, whether we like it or not. All that we require is a better price. What we have been offered is ridiculous. The present price, when costs of production are taken into consideration. does not pay us.” Mr T. F. Penrose, of Leeston, who opposed, said that the results that Canterbury had achieved by so-called “direct action” had been well worth while. "Those who have condemned us so roundly,” he added, “may yet benefit from our labours.”

The motion was defeated by 21 votes to 15.

Commenting on Mr Penrose’s observation, Mr E. A. Field, Dominion president of the National Beekeepers’ Association, said that by going direct to the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) Canterbury had, if anything, prevented New Zealand beekeepers from getting an increase in price for their product. Mr Penrose: It at least brought the matter to a head much sooner than otherwise would have been the case. The convention also considered a motion by Mr A. R. Gosset, of Leeston:, “That, in view of the discretionary powers given in clause 4 of the honey marketing regulations, the Internal Marketing Division be requested to leave the South Island out of its operations.” Closing the Ranks “One of the dangers of conventions such as this,” said Mr Field, in reply, “is the splitting of our ranks by the setting up of other organisations.” In order to fight the Government, he added, it was essential that their ranks should be closed, and he advocated sending remits vo the annual conference through orthodox channels. The chairman; This is quite constitutional. We can put everything in order by confirming such resolutions at our annual branch meeting to-morrow night. If we emphasise our dissatisfaction with things, the Government might take a little more notice of us. “This motion >s against all that we have been fighting for for years,” declared Mr L. K. Griffin, of Woodlands. Southland. “On behalf of Southland. I say that wo must throw it out. It would simply make us a laughing stock.” The motion, eventually, was withdrawn. the chairman remarking that it could, if necessary, be considered at the Canterbury branch meeting. The convention, he added, was quite competent in his opinion to pass any resolutions. and he pointed out that in addition to Canterbury delegates others were present from Marlborough, Westland. Southland, and Central Otago.