Control of Honey Industry

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 267, 6 August 1932, Page 13

Control of Honey Industry

Sir,— Kindly allow me space to eota; ment on the deliberations of the National Beekeepers’ Association in conference. Ifc is reported that a deputation waited on, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. O, E. Macmillan, for the purpose of justifying the marketing policy of the Honey Export Control Board, and to receive assurance that the powers of the board should not be curtailed. One is moved to ask why, if the policy of the Control Board has been the success claimed, such justification was necessary? The' reply of the Minister, in respect to the amount of £45,000 spent on advertising, is significant, the department suggesting that the prices obtained were by an expensive method. * The Minister furtheg observed that if the .board were function* ing satisfactorily for the producers, is could not be as bad as some made out. The Minister, however, would do well to remember that the National Beekeepers’ Association, ‘‘from whom he received the deputation,” only represents a minority of the producers; and a large number of their members are only backyard or sideline beekeepers. What ot the opinion of the majority of producers outside the National Beekeepers Association who are antagonistic to the principle of control, and very dissatisfied witffi the Control Board’s policy? The poor prices obtained on ths local market for honey are claimed by the president of the national association to be due to the failure of individual competitive marketing, whereas it is the direct result of the Control Boards failure to return a better price on the honey exported, which caused producers to dispose ot their produce on the local market, where, in spite of alleged failure, they received better returns than they would have received if they bad exported. Not being satisfied with the failure of their experimental marketing schemes, which they are endeavouring to coyer up, the National Beekeepers Association now proposes a more al scheme than ever; tn the P ro P<>red Honey Local Marketing Act, shelved during last session of Parliament, the object of which is .to obtain power to fix a minimum retail price and force tn producer to sell all his honey through a central board, with the exception of what he sells direct to the consumer. The proposed Act is nothing ®°re less than a barefaced attempt to bnng about the socialisation of the industry, and force the local consumer to pay * price that will in some measure compensate producers for the poor prices obtained for honey exported under the blighting restrictions of the control board. The public can rest however, that producers, ontside the national Beekeepers’ Association, have * proper regard for the consuming publics interests; and it will be more than strange if Parliament of to-day can be induced by a minority movement of producers to enact such a measure, especially at the present time. It should be remembered that the Honey Export Control Act was brought into being by a minority movement whica took producers unawares: and it is quite time the department saw fit to test the feeling of producers again on the matter of export control. The operations of the board have been an emphatic failure, for whereas the consumer Great Britain paid 1/- to 1/4 per for New Zealand honey, the producer received less than 4d per of which he had to pay -for P«WnS> freight io grading store, grading charges, wharfage, etc., besides the cost of proauction. Is there any wonder why the National Beekeepers’ Association entertains secret fears for the ence of the Control Board? We now know why they are so loudly justifying its policy.—l am, etc. 3ENTO N Featherston. July 28.