DAIRY ZONING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 35, 20 November 1937, Page 11

DAIRY ZONING

SOUTH CANTERBURY SUPPLIERS. ASHBURTON COMPANY CRITICISED. (Special to the “Guardian.”) TIMARU, This Day. The Executive of the South Canterbury Farmers’ Union at its meeting yesterday criticised the present system under which cream is handled in the district. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the methods of grading and testing, while an alleged request by the company that suppliers would have to become shareholders or lose their bonus, was strongly criticised. The chairman (Mr W. Buchan) explained that a deputation from the Union had recently waited on the Executive Commission of Agriculture in regard to the industry in South Canterbury. There was dissatisfaction in the district owing to zoning, which meant that outside firms could come in and do as they liked. It was for the producers to say whether or not they would submit to the position. Mr J. Macauley reviewed the points that the deputation had placed before the Commission and added that it was emphasised by members that South Canterbury could easily handle its own produce if it were given the chance. It appeared to him that the Commission had ring fenced the interests of the Ashburton Dairy Company in South Canterbury. It appeared, too, as though each company affected had made the best deal possible for itself, irrespective of the interests of the suppliers, and unfortunately all sense of co-operation was lost.

Criticism of the Ashburton company’s testing was. made by Mr Macauley, who also took exception to a letter which had been sent out by the Company stating that suppliers would be obliged to take shares in the Company if they wanted to obtain the bonus payments. The fact that a supplier was expected to be tied to one company for four years was regarded by Mr Macauley as unreasonable. Mr Davey maintained that the Ashburton Company was not within its rights in sending out the letter binding suppliers for four seasons. With the reorganisation of the industry, the deputation had explained to the Commission, South Canterbury suppliers were not satisfied that the arrangements were the best that _ could be made from an economic point of view. The position was most unsatisfactory.

Mr A. E. Dobson said that the Commission had made it clear to the deputation that no cream from South Canterbury could go over the Rakaia River. When Clandeboye was operating it used to rail its cream to Christchurch, and the prevention of that method was one of the reasons why the company had gone out of business “I tried 15 months ago to rouse the Union to the danger that was looming ahead,” said Mr Dobson. “That danger has now overtaken us. We are in the hands of a monopoly and there is widespread dissatisfaction.” Suppliers, he claimed, were really in queer street over tests, while there were other causes for dissatisfaction. The zoning had come and he thought that the Union in the interests of 1500 suppliers should urge that the position generally should be rectified. Tracing the developments which led to the Clandeboye factory going out of existence, Mr W. H. Staniland said that when it was known that the industry was to be re-organised, a meeting of company representatives was held, when it was agreed to support the proposal for the establishment of one co-operative company in Timaru. The first question asked was where was a capital of £40,000 coming from? They thought that the farmers might take shares and support a Timaru company, but they received a very poor hearing from the Executive Commission. At a further conference he intimated on behalf of Clandeboye that the company was not going to give up the cream business and then the regulations came in which prevented the cream being sent to Christchurch. The Commission all through had tried to have the South Canterbury cream sent to Ashburton, and when there was no possibility of another company being started in Timaru and the regulations prevented cream going to Christchurch, Clandeboye had no option but to hand over its business, and received the same rate of compensation as other companies which had been similarly absorbed. Dissatisfaction) Expressed. As a big supplier, continued Mr Staniland he was not as satisfied with the testing and some other little things as he was when the cream was handled by the Clandeboye company. He thought, however, that, under the amalgamation when things settled clown, suppliers would obtain the highest return under the guaranteed price. It would have been preferable to have had a new company in Timaru but the Commission had a definite wish that South Canterbury cream should go to Ashburton. Why, he did not know. Mr Macauley pointed out that if suppliers had to take shares in the Ashburton Company they should know the financial position of the company and obtain other information first. Mr Staniland explained that he had asked the managing director of the company six months ago to hold meetings in the various districts' and explain matters, hut he had not done so. He moved that the chairman and general-manager of the Ashburtol Company should be asked to hold meetings in South Canterbury. “A Discontented Lot.” “I do not think that there is a satisfied supplier on South Canterbury,” said Mr C. Ley, in seconding the motion. If Mr Clark came down, he added, lie would find a very discontented lot. » It was unanimously decided on the motion of Mr A. W T . Barnett, that the Dominion secretary of the Union be asked to approach the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain if farmers who were compelled to supply cream to factories as a result of the zoning system could be forced to take shares in the factory or lose the benefits of the bonus.

Mr L. V. Talbot said there had been a certain amount of feeling over the matter but they should not harp about the past. They should look to tho future and make a concerted endeavour to obtain the best results from the scheme.