THE DAIRY POOL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 130, 2 June 1923, Page 11

THE DAIRY POOL.

CONTENDING FORCES

| (B.V Our Special Correspondent.)

J WELLINGTON, June 1. !n A S th .l Session of Parliament draws | nearer the controversy over the "Dairy _ j Pool grows in interest and intensity. ;Jl*or quite a lon- time after tho witn- . | trawal of the Dairy Produce Control _,uill in the dying hours of last Parlia- ; | ment, the advocates of the pooling scheme L had practically all the talking and pro- , ipaganda work to themselves. They did | not cease in their activities for a single . , moment. Every dairying district in the ; Dominion was canvassed and organised. ; | and almost every dairy farmer was urged ;to join in the agitation which was to win . for him similar advantages to those said !to have been gained by his neighbour Jin. | sheepfarmer through the instrumentality of the "Meat Pool."' The campaign has been very energetically maintained, and apparently has been attended by a considerable measure of success. But durin" ; the last month or so some of* the dairy : farmers of a sceptical turn of mind have j been making inquiries on their own ncI count concerning the propose-;! "pool." I and as a result are not eager to rush : into the scheme without further informaI turn in regard to its. whole scope and pur- ; pose. Among these' must lie numbered a i majority of the directors of factories who j were called together in Stratford last week in the expectation that they would side with tho advocates of the "pool." THE STRATFORD MEETING. The Stratford meeting, held in one of the largest dairying districts in the Dominion and thoroughly representative of the industry in all it's branches, was so far easily the most important event of the campaign. It was designed to give Taranaki's approval to the Dairy Produce Control Bill and to ensure tlie triumphant progress of the measure on to the Statute Book. But while the meetI ing was practically unanimous in admitItiug that there was room for improve;ment in the industry at this end, and in | the shipping and marketing, it refused Iby a substantial majority to extinguish i the rights of the individual producer | without full information. Mr. W. Mai>well, the leader of the opposition, so to I speak, was assailed by the suggestion | that he was representing the merchant j exporters of the Dominion, and he met jthe indictment with a very spirited re- i I tort. He had gone thoroughly into the question sincerely and honestly, he said, I with the idea of preventing, if possible. | any rash move that might cause disaster |to the industry. He had not assumed that he knew the whole position himself, but he had investigated every possible channel of information. He had asked j mercantile people to meet him, and he had given them his views and had obtained theirs. If he was ibetter informed than his critics were it was not his fault. THE MEAT PARALLEL. One of the chief arguments for the institution of a Dairy Produce Control Hoard put forward by speakers not so well informed as Mr. Maxwell, was that the Meat Control Board had been a huge success, saving the sheepfarmers many thousands in charges and obtaining many more thousands for them in the way of increased prices. This pretty little story. which 'has passed into a jest in tbe city, was promptly discredited by the local paper. "Tlie reduction of freights," it reiterated, "'was in conformity with general reductions nil over the world,'brought about by conditions obtaining on "both inward and outward freights. The increase in prices was due entirely to market conditions. If not, why did the Meat Control Board fail to secure a similar increase in the price of beef." Why indeed! As a matter of fact, while the price of New Zealand mutton increased by 34 per cent during the period between December 1921 and October 1022, when the Meat Control Board was supposed to have wrought its miracle, the price of Argentine mutton increased by 40 per cent. During tlie same period the price -of New Zealand lamb increased by 50 per cent and the price of Argentine lamb by 57 per cent. In the light of these indisputable figures the miracle of the Meat Board becomes a rather sordid piece of sleight of hand, nnd is not going to 'help the proposed Dairy Board at all. AN ALTERNATIVE. The growing feeling among the dairy farmers appears to be that what they i require is not arbitrary control hy a'body j that might or might not be deeply conI cerned lor their welfare, but such improvements in the production, shipping, and marketing as would give the New Zealand producers as nearly as possible the advantages that" are enjoyed by tho producers of Denmark and Canada. Towards this end it has been proposed that a commission, consisting of two or three capable men. should be dispatched to the other dairying countries of the world to make a thorough investigation of their methods in the interests of the producers here. A commission of this kind would-be much more likely to render valuable service to the dairy farmers and the Dominion than would a duplicate of the Meat Board with all its costly equipment and ineffective ways. The creation of another controlling body certainly should be delayed until Parliament has had an opportunity to learn what the one already in existence has been doing. This, at any rate, is the view of a large body of dairy farmers in the Taranaki and Wellington districts, who are reluctant to abandon their present business arrangements and commit them- i selves to others which might not prove nearly as satisfactory, or, as some of I j them add, as enduring. I