Eight Impossible Dream 1914

CHAPTER EIGHT

Impossible Dream

Finally, after 25 years, a co-operative enterprise began that would survive the complex and forever-changing face of New Zealand’s agricultural sector during the twentieth century. It has steadfastly upheld the original aims and objectives in what were difficult and challenging times, when amalgamations, communication, mechanisation and technology proved the nemesis of many other organisations of a like kind. It often stood amongst bullish competitors who have now disappeared altogether and other amalgamated combines still attempting to lift the gate off the hinges.

With forerunners the Egmont Farmers’ Union Limited and Gillies and Nalder having contributed to the initial groundwork, The Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society of New Zealand Limited, now Allied Farmers Limited, trading as Taranaki Farmers, King Country Farmers, Waikato Farmers, Manawatu Farmers and more recently Allied Farmers Livestock in Canterbury, following a tumultuous and often tenuous history has miraculously and deservedly survived. It is somewhat fitting that the original copy of the Prospectus and Memorandum of Association in the old leather-bound annual meeting minute book still has a brown rabbit’s foot affixed as a good luck charm. With so many battles to fight and win in the coming years this would prove to be an omen of the Society’s tenacity and continued longevity.

From its small beginnings the Society grew to have the heart of an ox and as many lives as a cat. The Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society of New Zealand was about to climb into the stock and station ring. There was more to this entrepreneurial intimation than was generally realised. It would withstand some extraordinary situations throughout the years and many loyal farmers who proposed and supported this venture would find their family commitment as passionate as the management and employees of the company. Original notes affixed to the inside front cover of the Annual

Farmers’ Co-op original Prospectus 1913 with ‘good luck charm’, a brown rabbit’s foot, still affixed to the Minute Book.

General Meeting Minute Book carefully saved for posterity, enabled the first years of the history of what would become a provincial titan of the New Zealand stock and station industry to unfold.

At last, following many trials and tribulations, speculation and disappointment, and two years of meticulous planning, including dozens of meetings and intensive canvassing throughout south and central Taranaki, The Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society of New Zealand Limited became a reality on Saturday 31 January 1914 at 11:30am at the Oddfellows Hall, Hawera with an attendance of over 120 mostly farmer shareholders crammed into the hall. Messrs Buckeridge, Death, Barkla, Gray, Simpson, Corrigan, Dickie and the secretary Mr Baker had already met at 10:30am at the offices of Halliwell & Sellar to set ground rules for the meeting and consider a number of issues prior to what was to be a memorable and successful day. George Buckeridge was in the chair, as usual armed with his extraordinary knowledge on the subject of co-operatives. He stood and welcomed the gathering with a warm genial smile, scanning the enthusiastic and expectant audience of farmers who sat before him. They were young, old, rich and poor, but all seemingly had the common aim of ensuring that this would be a defining moment in the history of the co-operative movement of South Taranaki. Buckeridge was obliged to deliver a Statutory Report to the meeting and remarked that he would make it as brief as possible: The total number of shares allotted is 2001. The receipts of the company on capital account are: Application fees £2001; allotment fees £715; total £2716. The payments are nil. The following is an estimate of the preliminary expenses of the Society: Printing, advertising, stationery, etc., £120, registration £50; solicitors charges (approximate) £100; total £270. The chairman indicated that any discussion on the report should be deferred till after nominations had been received for directors. Under the Articles of the Association the meeting must elect not fewer than 11 or more than 15 directors and as the process of election would take a considerable time, it would save time if, first of all, the meeting decided how many directors should be elected and then proceed with the nominations. Then the ballot papers could be tabulated and whilst they were being prepared discussion could take place. Mr J. O. Taylor moved and Mr Todd seconded that the meeting elect 15 directors, stating that ‘this was a scattered, growing district and the directorate required all the strength it could get’. The motion was carried.

In reply to a question from the floor the chairman expanded on matters pertaining to shares, stating that they were divided into three issues. The ‘A’ issue of shares was set aside for the purpose of enabling the company to purchase businesses which it might desire to acquire and the owners might be willing to sell and who would be prepared to take payment in paid-up shares rather than cash. In order to enable that to be done it was necessary to make provision for it in the Articles of Association. The ‘A’ issue, ‘of which no shares had so far been allotted, had the right to elect five directors, but that would not be an issue for the present meeting’. The ‘B’ issue was reserved for the purpose of enabling kindred co-operative concerns, such as dairy factory companies, bee-keepers associations, bacon companies or any similar organisation to facilitate. Provision was made for the election of five directors to represent this issue of shares, but sufficient had not yet been subscribed to warrant the appointment of these directors. The ‘C’ was the issue to ordinary shareholders, who had the right to elect 15 directors. When asked how many companies had already affiliated, the chairman replied that 11 had paid application fees and some their allotments as well. A number had written saying they would take up shares but had not yet sent in the applications.

The meeting continued, with a particularly thorny question being raised by Mr J. O. Taylor relating to proxy votes, arguing that no-one should be shut out because the forms did not reach the secretary within the prescribed time and that the notices sent out to shareholders did not mention that, ‘the proxies had to be in the secretary’s hands forty-eight or twenty-four hours before the time of the meeting’ and, in addition, many did not see the notice in the newspapers and knew nothing

about the time limit. Although the chairman and the Society’s solicitor Mr Halliwell explained they had to comply with the law and could not alter it, Mr Taylor continued his protestation and argued that ‘it was not fair that these proxies should be shut out – it was dirty’ and moved the adjournment of the meeting for a month in order that the whole matter might be placed on a fair basis.

This untimely objection drew a sharp retort from Mr Halliwell, who said that the company desired to have everything fair and above board and he strongly resented the remark and insinuation made by Mr Taylor. He then attempted to recover his position by explaining that what he was complaining about was not starting on a proper basis. He said, ‘this is not fair, and not being fair was not clean and not being clean was therefore dirty’ and went on to say that the present restriction in regard to proxies meant the disenfranchisement of a large number of shareholders. The chairman stated that most shareholders had complied with the official notice and attended the meeting or sent proxies in due order. Only 50 out of 900 had not done so and it was unfortunate that they were left out. Two others, Messrs Todd and Peterson, upheld Mr Taylor’s objection and it was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned for two weeks to allow all the proxy votes ‘being put in proper form’. The motion was put and decisively lost. The meeting was then adjourned for lunch and a photograph taken of the provisional directors.

This issue was not the only controversial matter raised at the meeting and following lunch George Buckeridge launched into an eloquent appraisal of the positive aspects of the shareholders’ achievement in establishing the company when over two years previously, at the first meeting, ‘it was freely expressed that they were aiming at an impossibility’. An impossible dream had been realised and George recalled a meeting of delegates after canvassing had been carried out in the district for 12 months – the most enthusiastic meeting he had ever had the pleasure of attending but in which he had been told that it was impossible to start such a company. His personal delight with what can only be described as an outstanding success prompted him to entertain the meeting by delivering three verses of a poem he had found in a newspaper that he thought would convey his thoughts about the new company:

Somebody said that it couldn’t be done, But he with a chuckle replied, That ‘may be it couldn’t’, but he would be one Who wouldn’t say no till he tried. So he buckled right in, with the trace of a grin On his face. If he worried he hid it. He started to sing as he tackled the thing That couldn’t be done – and he did it!

Somebody scoffed, ‘Oh you’ll never do that –At least, no one has ever done it’! But he took off his coat and took off his hat, And the first thing we knew he’d begun it. With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin, Without any doubting of quiddit, He started to sing as he tackled the thing, That couldn’t be done – and he did it!

There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done, There are thousands to prophesy failure, There are thousands to point out to you one by one, The danger that waits to assail you. But just buckle up with a bit of a grin, Then take off your hat and go to it. Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing, ‘That cannot be done’ – and you’ll do it.

George’s light-hearted yet meaningful message drew considerable affirmation and applause from his audience. He thanked everyone who assisted in the work of bringing it to this point – it was an achievement to be proud of. In order to demonstrate how successful they had been he made a comparison with what were the biggest and most successful co-operative companies. The largest co-operative company transacting business in New Zealand – the Farmers’ Co-op Association, with headquarters in Canterbury – had in the first year of operation 800 shareholders with a subscribed capital of £17,500 and the total amount of business transacted was £15,234. The Taranaki company went to allotment with 730 shareholders, representing 2,001 shares, or £20,010 subscribed capital. The company now had nearly 900 shareholders, having added upwards of 150 since going to allotment. The position of the Canterbury Farmers’ Association in the second year was 1,076 shareholders and £26,000 subscribed capital and the value of the business transacted for that year was £62,700. The chairman also referred to another company that the meeting might like to measure success against, The Farmers’ Co-operative Auctioneering Company with its headquarters in the Waikato and considered to be one of the most successful co-operative companies in New Zealand. Having commenced operation some six years earlier by taking over a substantial existing business in the Waikato, the first report showed that the number of shares held at the end of the first year was 3,000 at £5 each, which represented £15,000 subscribed capital. The Taranaki company’s capital was between £23,000 and £24,000. It was the end of the third year before the Waikato company arrived at the same position.

Consolidating the company’s healthy position as it stood in the starting blocks was chairman George Buckeridge’s prime aim at this juncture. Knowing that this was probably the most critical moment in the set-up procedure, every stone had been turned to ensure a smooth and positive beginning. He told the meeting that although their company ‘had not yet any permanent officers appointed they had already secured a sufficient amount of business to put through which would place them on equality with the Canterbury Farmers’ Company in their second year of business.’

This statement on the prospect of success drew immediate applause from the floor. Apart from the considerable time and effort put in by many of those closely associated with the organisation in the initial stages, the basic concept had been taken up, accepted and supported by the rank and file farmer, which was the most gratifying aspect of the whole project. George Buckeridge went on to express his gratitude to all who had worked with him and for the very able assistance given. An army may have a very good general but he could not win a fight unless he had efficient forces behind him, this company had these forces and it had very able seconds and thirds in command. In concluding his address he noted a particularly enormous contribution: ‘an achievement which the whole company should be proud of’. Mentioning James Barkla, the meeting erupted into spontaneous applause. Mr Barkla demonstrated what could be achieved by someone who put his shoulder to the wheel in a determined manner. Buckeridge also spoke of Mr Bullock of Tarata whose name had been omitted from the list of candidates for the position of director. He said that Tarata was not one of the richest districts in Taranaki, so Mr Bullock’s achievement was all the more creditable, this again drew applause from the floor. Now the chairman emphasised the fact that those elected to the board of directors were going to have some hard work to do. ‘Any fool could start a thing but it took clever men and energetic men to make a success of it.’ The success of the venture now depended on the directors.

The meeting now turned to matters pertaining to servicing the whole province and James Corrigan said that he would like to see the company purchase businesses along the coast, ‘so as to have one great business concern involving auctioneering and trade and business generally of farming requisites’. He felt that some farmers were reticent, thinking that the company would never get started. He now trusted that the directors would approach the owners of suitable businesses with a view to purchasing and establishing branches from Waitotara to New Plymouth.

Reference had already been made by the chairman that permanent officers had yet to be employed to transact the business of the company but nothing was forthcoming as to how this was going to be accomplished. In reply to a question the chairman said that the Waikato Farmers’ Co-op started out by purchasing McNicol’s business for £33,120. In payment the vendors took 6,624 fully paidup shares, ‘but not a penny piece in cash’. This had provided them with a wonderful start and had received eight per cent on their money. The £33,120 represented properties, stock etc., and there was in addition £5,000 paid for goodwill which the company wrote off inside two years. He went on to say that, ‘doubtless McNicol’s business was a very good one at the time, but if the farmers decided to run their own business McNicol’s may not have remained so viable’, implying that any large proprietary company would have difficulty competing with a large farmers’ co-operative operation.

This was possibly the first intimation of what was to follow although it seemed that the meeting had yet to pick up the implication. Mr Taylor again rose to ask, ‘I would like Mr Corrigan to give some idea of what can be done’. The chairman responded by saying, ‘It is impossible to say what can be done, we do not know what businesses will be approached or what terms they will be prepared to offer. Until we know, it impossible for anyone to predict what can be done’. Mr Taylor responded by saying this was contrary to what Mr Corrigan had said. The chairman replied: ‘I believe business could be secured on favourable terms, but it would not be advisable to indicate them, that must be left to directors’. Mr Taylor challenged again: ‘We should have something more than that, we have not any more money in hand than would run an ordinary lolly shop in High Street’. The chairman now firmly told Mr Taylor and the meeting that so far as the acquisition of business was concerned, the company must not unduly precipitate matters. It must be assured that it is strong enough to go ahead against opposition if need be. He said, ‘the experience of other people in certain directions – is going to be our experience if we take the same direction’. Supportive calls greeted his comments. A few interjections were audible from those who considered that if the company did not start with a full complement of branches throughout the province shareholders would lose faith in the organisation, but the chairman refuted these suggestions by saying that they had no idea what businesses would be offered and that if enough finance was available to establish two or three outlets then this would happen and if they found they had sufficient funds to establish five or six it would be foolish not to, but that was a matter for the directors.

Mr Laurent wanted to remind the pessimists amongst them that whilst the company had £22,000 subscribed, it was not long ago that three small co-op companies with £1000 each had wiped out the Crown Dairy, but probably the most profound and calming support came from Duncan Scott, who said:

Mr Chairman, so far as this company is concerned, and so far as any money I have put into it, I am quite content to have it in the hands of the directorate. I think a lot of the non-sensical questions which have been asked should be put down and let us get on with the business.

He was loudly applauded and a comment from the floor followed: Hear hear! We cannot all have stores at our back doors, but in helping the company we are helping to break down monopolies and helping along Taranaki. Let us all give the directors a free hand.

Again the audience applauded. The vast majority were obviously unanimous in their determination that the meeting would fulfil its obligations and, realising his strong position, George Buckeridge called on the meeting to reaffirm its support: Now, gentlemen, I have made the position of the company quite clear – (Voices: ‘Yes’) – both in regard to the amount of cash actually subscribed and the amount of subscribed capital? … I have read to you from the report of the Farmers Association in Canterbury the actual amount of share capital subscribed

by them at the end of their first year, and I have shown you that we are very nearly in as good a position now although we have not yet started. I take it that every share in our company is financial today and will be financial all the way through. Although the actual cash is not in hand it is as good as in hand, because the uncalled capital of a company is always good security to finance upon.

The motion for the adoption of the chairman’s report was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. Twenty-three nominations were received for the directorate, 15 being required. The result of the ballot of those elected was: G. H. Buckeridge (Eltham) 201, C. D. Dickie (Waverley) 178, J. Barkla (Hawera) 176, A. F. Symes (Patea) 172, W. F. Coombridge (Te Kiri) 157, E. A. Gray (Lowgarth) 150, D. Todd (Inglewood) 149, A. E. Death (Hawera) 147, A. Hunter (Hawera) 146, J. R. Corrigan (Hawera) 145, T. Foreman (Alton) 144, G. Gwynne (Kaponga) 129, W. Jones (Kaimata) 127, W. Richards (Cardiff) 124, W. Skedgwell 110. Mr A. T. Wills proposed that there be one auditor. This was seconded by J. R. Corrigan and it was carried. Messrs J. A. Turton, W. O’Callaghan and Messrs Rowley and Gill (Wellington) were proposed for the position, and the ballot declared in favour of Mr Turton.

It was decided to leave the auditors remuneration in the hands of the directors and that it be no less than ten guineas nor more than 20 guineas, and the matter relating to the salary of the secretary was left in the hand of the directors. Mr R. W. Baker had undertaken the services of interim secretary throughout the initial meetings and the question of recognising his contribution was also left up to the directors. However, the chairman referred to his good work and accorded him a hearty vote of thanks. Mr Baker, in reply, said ‘the work has been a labour of love’ and that ‘he had a good man to work with in Mr Buckeridge’. Mr C. Gibson, of Hawera proposed a vote of hearty thanks to Mr Buckeridge and Mr Barkla for their efforts in promoting the company and this was carried unanimously. Mr Buckeridge cordially thanked the shareholders for the vote of appreciation. He said he felt ‘deeply gratified at the support given to the Society. It had been a hard fight, but the harder the fight the better the victory. They had not yet won the fight, but they had carried the first line of defence. And there was no doubt that they were going to achieve victory’.

Applause greeted his final words. James Barkla also briefly returned thanks by speaking optimistically of the future of the Society. The well attended, highly charged meeting came to a satisfactory conclusion.

There was a further meeting gathered on this momentous day to elect a chairman and other executive officers. On a motion proposed by Mr Gray, seconded by Mr Death, George H. Buckeridge was elected first chairman of The Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society of New Zealand, and on the proposal of Messrs Coombridge and Barkla, Mr Alex Hunter was elected deputy chairman. Messrs Gray, Death, Barkla and Corrigan with the chairman and deputy chairman were appointed to the executive, with a quorum of three. They also resolved to make the first call on funds to pay £162 associated with initial set-up costs and resolved to ‘approach different firms in the district and obtain any information regarding any business that can be bought and to submit to the next meeting of directors’. As a short arrangement an offer was made to Messrs Halliwell, Robertson and Blair, for the use of the corner and adjoining room facing High Street, as temporary offices at the rate of 12 shillings per week.

George Buckeridge was without doubt a man of immense vision with a passion for the successful evolution of all things agricultural and he deserves credit for being one of Taranaki’s, and indeed New Zealand’s, founding fathers. As time goes by, entrepreneurs like Buckeridge fade in the mists of time, yet their unseen industry and foresight has contributed enormously to the Taranaki of today. Many followed who also deserve acclaim, but few had the energy and ability to make such a significant impact in this province on the western edge of New Zealand.