Ruakaka Suppliers Sore Over New Dairy Factory Boundaries

Northern Advocate, 24 March 1937, Page 8

Ruakaka Suppliers Sore Over New Dairy Factory Boundaries

A T the recent sitting of the Executive Commission of Agriculture in Whangarei to fix the boundaries of dairy factories to prevent overlapping, it was decided, in regard to Whangarei and Waipu, that the boundary should be on the main road at the junction of Watson’s road. In the area allotted to Waipu was included the block of land to which access is obtained from One Tree Point road and Marsden Point road.

At Ruakaka last night, the directors ol the Waipu Dairy Company met a number of suppliers from this area and discussed various matters in connection with the change. The chairman, Mr D. H. McKenzie, said that the Waipu directors felt it to be their duty to meet those suppliers of the Whangarei company, who would probably be supplying Waipu next season.

He asked that the discussion be confined to present and future aspects of the position, but several of those present found the past to be an interesting subject for comnSent and delved into many bygone details. The discussion was mainly confined to three or four speakers.

Amalgamation Not Considered,

Mr McKenzie, at the outset, referred to the fact that the Waipu Company

put a carting tax of :»d per lb. butterfat, because Waipu wanted the sup-

had started operations in the Ruakaka valley 33 years ago. With the coming of the paved road to Waipu some years ago, overlapping had resulted, the Whangarei company lorries coming into the One Tree Point Area. The

nliers itself,

Whose Offer? _ Mr Hewlett; That was a condition offered by the Whangarei company. The chairman:. It was not brought forward by the Waipu company.

j:oning commission considered this at its sitting in Whangarei and the Waipu company claimed the area in which it had been collecting all along..

Mr Crompton: It was brought forward by Waipu to prevent the supply going to Whangarei. Mr R. Johns denied that the Waipu company had ever suggested that the carting tax should be imposed. Mr Crompton: I am just as certain that I am right. ’ The chairman said that two years ago it was agreed that if Whangarei came to One Tree Point, Waipu would not take their suppliers if Whangarei would not take those of Waipu.

The question of the amalgamation of

the companies was brought up by Whangarei, but would not be considered by Waipu. The proposal was that half Waipu’s supply should go to

Maungaturoto and the other half to Whangarei. Maungaturoto would not agree, and the commission said that all Waipu’s supply could not go to Wha-

hgarei. The boundaries were fixed as stated.

Mr Crompton claimed that a Waipu director had been canvassing for supply in the area, and that Waipu had broken a gentleman’s agreement.

Mr McKenzie said that he knew that the fact that some. suppliers would ’ have to leave Whangarei was a sore point, but in the same

Mr Hewlett: We can say that we were not poaching for suppliers. The chairman, to Mr Crompton: I must ask you to withdraw that. Mr Crompton: Ask me to withdraw what? Mr Crompton was asked to name the director, but he said he was not prepared to do this and would not withdraw. The chairman: It is your duty to withdraw. Mr Cromptpn finally agreed to withdraw, 'if it would allow the meeting to go, on. Companies Not Responsible. Mr W. H. Chatham said that, in his locality, the suppliers had had a disagreement with the Whangarei company, which had recently refused to go down the Takahiwai road. He, had had a mandate from 15 suppliers to go to Waipu if nothing was done about the matter, but Whangarei had apparently sensed that, and, within 15 minutes, had agreed to come down the road. No Waipu director had said one word to him about the question. The chairman: Neither the Waipu or Whangarei companies is responsible for the new boundaries, but the Executive Commission of Agriculture. They have stated that their work is to eliminate overlapping, and whether we are' satisfied or not, we have got to abide by their decision. Ido not think it would be any use any supplier protesting to the commission. If the One Tree Point suppliers join heartily with us, I am sure that, in a year or two, our production will reach the 1000-ton mark.

way, some of Waipu’s best suppliers would have 4o go to Wha- . ngarel. The boundaries had to be ' adhered to. As a result of the ret adjustment, the Waipu company would gain about 60 or 70 tons extra supply, but the factory had the machinery and equipment to deal with this.

i Mr A. Vaile: lam opposed to going to the Waipu factory at all, and if I can avoid it I will. If I can have the matter brought before the commission I would like *to do it. I ask you if your ideas have ..changed since you allowed money to be taken out of my pocket and paid to other people. The; money was taken from me by you and handed over to the general suppliers. 1 ask what can -we expect in the future? You could have relieved us of this charge. The Same Treatment. The chairman:" I don’t know what you are driving at, but, if you come into the Waipu company, you will get ' the same treatment as any other supplier. ■Mr Pyle; I ask you what is your objection to ‘speaking of the past. In the past you have not paid out to thesame extent as Whangarei. Can you dc so in the future? Mr H. C". Hewlett, a director, referring to Mr Vaile’s comments, said that the Whangarei company had made an agreement with Waipu for the Wharigarei lorries not to come past the old bridge, and the suppliers had to pay for taking their cans to the bridge. These suppliers had, tried to get Waipu to alter the boundaries, but Waipu had not been agreeable. This was a concession, as previously the suppliers had ’ sent their cream up the One Tree Point road at their own expense. Mr J. Crompton said that he claimed ; that he could supply to whom he desired. He was sending his cream to Whangarei, but when it was decided to ask Waipu to allow Whangarei to . come tip the One Tree Point Road, Waipu agreed, providing Whangarei

Mr Pyle: Surely we can appeal

The chairman: You can, but I feel certain that you will get no satisfaction.

Cost of Production Difference.

Mr Crompton maintained that the cost of production was the main factor contributing to the difference in payout between Whangarei arid Waipu. The chairman: We now have a guaranteed price, and it will only be at the end of this financial year that a more reliable comparison of the balance sheets of the different factories will be able to be made.

Hi Mr Johns said that a lot of the difference in pay-out was due to the profits made by the Whangarei company in trading, but if it came to a legitimate butterfat pay-out, he considered he was getting just as much as the Whangarei supplier. Mr Crompton: You can’t blame us for wanting to try and save Id a lb. butterfat. . Various other matters in connection with the company were dealt with and several questions answered by the directors. The chairman said that when the new suppliers came in, collection would probably be made daily. At present it v?as made on every day except Sunday. In regard to representation on the directorate, he was certain that if a supplier was nominated he would be appointed. The annual meeting had always acceded to bis request to appoint a director .from the Ruakaka area. Mr McKenzie appealed, to the suppliers to put their shoulder to ( the wheel and help to make the company a success. If the output could be brought up to 1000 tons, the overhead would come down and the payout naturally improve.