DAIRY MARKETING.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 278, 5 September 1936, Page 3

DAIRY MARKETING.

POWERS OF ACTING-DIRECTOR. QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY SURPLUS (Special to the “Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, September 4. The operation of the Government’s marketing scheme for dairy products was the subject of questions during the discussion on the estimates of the dairy industry account in the House of Representatives to-day. It was generally expected that considerable interest would be taken in this particular vote, which appears on the Estimates for the first time, but the discussion lapsed momentarily after about half an hour, and the chairman of committees (Mr E. J. Howard) succeeded in putting the question and declaring it carried. The handling of New Zealand’s dairy products overseas was questioned by Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford), who sought a definition of the duties and powers of the Acting-Director of Marketing (Mr G. A- Duncan). It appeared that a considerable amount of the export produce was to be handed over to Amalgamated Dairies and Empire Dairies, he said, and those firms would presumably arrange for its distribution in Britain. He had seen a statement credited to the Minister for Agriculture* (the Hon. W. Lee Martin) to the effect that if other marketing concerns in England did not play the game, the whole of the dairy exports might he distributed through the two firms mentioned. Mr Lee Martin: Read what I said. You are too fond of misrepresenting. Mr Poison: I am not misrepresenting the Minister. lam merely saying what I have seen in print.

“Wrapped in Mystery.” “Even under the present arrangement,” Mr Poison continued, “at least two-fifths of the dairy exports will be taken out of the hands of the act-ing-director of marketing and distributed through an independent organisation. I agree that the organisation concerned can do valuable work, but similar consideration could well be given to other organisations, which have done excellent work in the past. Although I have the greatest confidence in Mr Duncan, the whole thing appeal’s to be wrapped in a great deal of mystery’.’ Mr C. H. Burnett (Govt., Tauranga) asked for a declaration of policy on dairy levies, which, he said, had been heavily increased before the present Government took office. The matter was ruled out of order by Mr Howard, on the grounds that there was no relevant item in the estimates. “I think the Minister might also explain the proposed operations of the dairy industry account,’* said the Hon. Adam Hamilton (Nat., Wallace). “The question arises whether the account is a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Personally, I should think there is likely to be a good surplus in the account at the end of the present season.” The Minister for Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash): That .is encouraging.

The Surplus. “We have still to receive a definite statement about the disposal of any surplus in the account,” continued Mr Hamilton. “The Minister lias said the money will be returned to the industry, but we have been left to wonder how it is to he returned. If there is a surplus—and I hope there will be—the dairy farmer should get it. Returning it to the industry might mean spending it on more dairy factories, or on a ship to take the produce to England.” Mr Poison: The Minister for Agriculture says it will go to the farmers. Mr Hamilton: The Minister for Marketing should say so, and back him up. Mr Poison: He lias not been doing that so far. Replying to the discussion, Mr Nash said Mr Duncan’s duties consisted of organising the whole of the marketing system. No special treatment was being given to any one section of the industry, either here or in Great Britain. The arrangements that were being made were based on reports from the London, manager, and would ensure that dairy exports from the Dominion were handled by the best distributing houses. There was to be no preferential treatment of any interests in the trade.