PRODUCER CONTROL OF HONEY INDUSTRY URGED BY OPPOSITION

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 October 1948, Page 4

PRODUCER CONTROL OF HONEY INDUSTRY URGED BY OPPOSITION

PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Last Night (PA).—The total honey production last season was 4700 tons, of which 151 tons, or three per cent., was handled by the Internal Marketing Dept., which was an indication that the department was not wanted by honey producers, said Mr. W. A. Sheat (Opp., Patea) in the House of Representatives this afternoon, the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill No. 2 was continued.

Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago) said the debate exploded the theory that a department under a Socialist regime could bring anything hut confusion confounded into anything it undertook. After a brief reply by Mr. Nash, the Bill was given its second reading, put through the committee stages, and promptly passed, giving one month’s supply, amounting to £15,193,000. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opp., Waltomo) opening the discussion, described the honey industry as one of the smaller branches of primary industry which was, however, of great value. Too little attention had been paid to it in the past. He criticised the marketing of the product and made a plea for the industry to be allowed to control Its own affairs as the dairy industry now did. Control through the Internal Marketing Division had been most unsatisfactory to producers, said Mr. Broadfoot.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Cullen) said the honey marketing regulations were agreed to by the Honey Control Board, by the Beekeepers’ Association (a producers' organisation) and by the Honey Suppliers’ Association. The 51 tons of honey the I.M.D. received last season was less than the producers had promised, but it was known that some producers were selling quantities ot honev privately at prices far above the fixed rates. This was virtually a black market and the prices were certainly black. The shortage ot honey in New Zealand in the last year or two had been largely due to the fact that p.eople now sought honey who formerly could not afford it. Mr. Cullen said that producers who had sold their supplies to the I.M.D. were satisfied. The I.M.D. had nothing for which to apologise, and had come to the rescue of the industry. The I.M.D. was prepared to co-onerato with the industry.

Mr. C. G. Harker (Opp., Hawke’s Bay) said that if willingness to cooperate rather than dictate was shown, and if co-operative marketing was encouraged, then much of tha beekeepers’ dissatisfaction would ba removed and more honey would ba made available at a cheaper price. Mr. J. R. Hanan (Opp., Invercargill) said regulations and controls which bound the industry had not allowed normal progress that would follow under a free market. Mr. A. E. Combs (Govt.. Onslow)' said if the beekeepers received from the I.M.D. a price which covered all outgoings then the beekeepers would be doing well. If the I.M.D. price was too low .it was open to them to approach the organisation and their to see if the nrice could not he varied to the advantage of the industry and beekeepers in particular.