HONEY INDUSTRY

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23941, 7 May 1943, Page 6

HONEY INDUSTRY

A NO CONFIDENCE MOTION CONVENTION MODIFIES PROPOSAL Beekeepers who met in convention in Christchurch yesterday occupied the whoie of the morning in considering whether or not they would pass a vote of lack of confidence in Mr W. W. Nelson, of Otorohanga, the Government representative of the Honey Advisory Committee. Eventually, after a debate in which there were frequent sharp exchanges of opinion, it was decided that “something more diplomatic should be put in its place." The convention, which was called by the Canterbury branch of the National Beekeepers' Association (and over which Mr W. B. Bray, the Canterbury president, presided) decided it was of opinion that, “owing to Mr Nelson being the Government nominee on the Honey Control Board, he does not fairly represent the industry as a whole, and we request that beekeepers be given more democratic representation." In opening the convention, Mr Braysaid that the industry was passing through a critical phase, and Canterbury producers had done their best to maintain what they considered to be the best interests of beekeepers as a whole by insisting on a fair price for their honey, "But, unfortunately, the deputation that we sent to the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) got us nowhere,” he said. “The Minister would not let us stale our case without interruption. We got no satisfaction from him whatsoever.” Mr T. F. Penrose, of Leeston claimed that as a Government representative on the Advisory Committee, Mr Nelson could not fairly represent the industry, "I have no confidence whatsoever in him in this dual capacity,” he added. A Deadlock The chairman: The position is now, \ since we flatly refused to supply honey, N . that there is a deadlock. \ Mr G. E. Woods, of Rangiora, then hioved a vote of no-confidence in Mr Nelson. This was seconded by Mr A. R. Gosset, of Leeston. The motion brought a strong protest from Mr L. K. Griffin, of Woodlands. Southland, who said: "Mr Nelson has the interests of the producers at heart. You in Canterbury owe a great deal to him. If you pass this you will give him a slap behind the back. It is a rotten thing to do.” The trouble with delegates, he continued, was that they did not understand modern marketing conditions. “We have improved conditions because Mr Nelson has fought for us,” he declared. A voice: Oh, yeah! (Laughter.) Mr Penrose: We are criticising Mr Nelson in his official capacity. Weare not casting any personal reflections. Mr . Griffin: Do not unnecessarily cast a slur on his name. "If branches passed resolutions supporting the marketing proposals, at least for the war, but pointing cut our inadequate prices, we might get somewhere,” commented Mr E. A. Field, cf Foxton, Dominion president of the National Beekeepers' Association “But I am against this resolution, because I consider it to be wrong. Mr Nelson does not represent the industry We represent the industry. We also have a right to fight our case before the Price Tribunal.” Mr Nelson and his associates, said Mr Field, were in an awkward situation, as they had been conscripted into their present positions. “Sucn resolutions will only make their task all the more hard," he added. “Mr Nelson is a man running 1000 hives, and is not going to suggest anything against his own interests." “Why start this convention with such a resolution?” inquired Mr L. F. Robins, of Temuka (another member of the Advisory Committee). Motion Redrafted Mr Penrose suggested that the motion should be withdrawn for redrafting, and this was agreed to. The chairman said he was .sorry that Mr Nelson was not present-to hear pe debate. He recalled that at jbfiFHasfings conference of the National, geekeepers’ Association Mr' Nelson had suggested to him that he should withdraw his opposition to the marketing proposals because he (Mr Nelson) had represented to the Minister that he had the beekeepers behind him, and he did not wish the speaker to voice any apparent dissension. “No slur is intended,” said the chairman, “but a man in public office has to take these things. In the language of the man in the street we are fighting a ‘yes man.’ We are all good fellows if we give in by way of co-opere-tion to a Government department.” Mr Penrose said he understood that Mr Nelson had addressed the recent Labour Conference in Wellington, also that he was personally hostile towards the Canterbury branch because of the attitude its members had assumed. The chairman: If that is true then Mr Nelson has not done this industry any service by addressing the Labour Conference. We are the people concerned, also Parliament as the representatives of the public. This was a secret conference at which the press was not admitted. When Mr Woods’s motion was redrafted it met with the approval ot Mr Griffin, and was carried unanimously. The chairman remarked that the resolution would be an indication to the Minister that he would have to look elsewhere for advice. “1 believe that Mr Nelson is the man on whom the Minister relies,” he said.