DAIRY CONTROL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVII, Issue 10825, 21 January 1927, Page 2

DAIRY CONTROL

THE LONDON BOARD.

STATE NOMINEE CRITICISED

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, January 20. Tlie situation in regard to the London agency of the iXlew Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board was fully discussed at a meeting of the board yesterday. It was decided to represent to the Acting-Prime Minister that Mr S'. Paterson (Government nominee on the London agency) was not supporting the board’s policy, and the board considered that he should be retired from his position. Reorganisation of the London agency will be considered at the first full meeting of the board after the return of the present producer members in June. Yesterday’s meeting was attended by Messrs W. Grounds (chairman), T. A. Winks, J. R. Thacker, W. Bryant, H. D. Forsyth, J. R. Corrigan, W. D. Hunt, W. Goodfellow, T. M. Timpany and W. E. Reynolds. Mr Grounds, according to “The Dairy Produce Exporter,” acknowledging the welcome of members, said 1 that despite compromises that had been effected lie was satisfied that, given unified action on the part of the board and the London agency, it was possible to now definitely demonstrate the value of the control movement to producers Steady action only was required to make the position quite clear to the country. The chairman reported fully upon the position in the London agency constitution, which required complete reconsideration, which, however, need not be entered upon until the return of the producer members as arranged. The Government nominee, Mr S. Paterson, had declared himself as definitely opposed to the board’s policy. His continued presence on the agency, therefore, was a serious handicap to the board and a menace to the development of the > industry. On the conclusion of > the report it was moved thafi the Acting-Prime Minister be written to pointing out that Mr Paterson, the Government nominee on the London agency, is not supporting the policy of the board and is making the position in London very difficult, and the board considers that Mr Paterson should be retired from the agency. Mr Goodfellow considered the worst feature of the position was that Mr Paterson drew a salary of £IOOO a year from the producers. He was entitled to his own views, but while drawing that salary as a member of the board he should either obey the board’s policy as laid down or resign. Mr Corrigan considered that "Mr Coates had ground for a definite grievance against Mr Paterson, from whom as Government representative he had a right to expect full, accurate and unbiased information. Apparently that had not been given, and the Prime Minister had been misled. Mr Grounds endorsed this view. Mr Paterson had made himself the head and front of the organised representations that were made to the Prime Minister, without advising the agency of his intentions. The volume of representations made to the Prime Minister necessarily created misgivings in Mr Coates’ mind, and Mr Paterson had therefore placed the Prime Minister in an extremely awkward position. He was entitled to have as much a grievance against Mr Paterson as had the board'.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

It was decided to consider the reorganisation of the board after the return of the present producer members of the board in June next.