DAIRY CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 122, 26 May 1927, Page 14

DAIRY CONTROL.

FARMERS WITH MR. GROUNDS "ONLY PRODUCERS" WANTED ON BOARD. TO REINSTATE' OLD POLICY. RESOLUTIONS AT WHANGAREI. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WHANGAREI, this day. At the morning session of the Auckland Provincial Farmers' Union Conference, a resolution was moved requesting the Control Board to abolish pooling. After a long discussion it was decided that further consideration be deferred pending a. reply to a wire to Mr. W. Grounds, asking his opinion. " When the conference resumed in the evening it was reported that Mr. Grounds had sent the following telegram in. reply to the conference's wire: "Goodfellow not yet submitted his proposal. My present view we should adhere firmly to central control in interests industry's future developments." Various delegates attempted to reopen the morning's discussion, but the chairman, ruled that that could only be done when Mr. Grounds replied to the conference's request for his opinion. The conference then proceeded to discuss the following Bay of Islands remit: That this conference has implicit faith in Mr. Grounds as chairman of the Dairy Control Board and in the fair marketing policy advocated by him. Captain Rushworth, the mover, said the remit was a disect challenge to the conference to say whether or not it had confidence in Mr. Grounds. The matter -had. been so fully, discussed that he had no need to-eay more. "We either follow Mr. Grounds, or-we do not," he said. "We mpll follow him to the bitter end and not surrender till he pulls down his flag." Mr. Allen, seconding the motion, said there was no man with common sense, but had faith in Mr. Grounds. Mr. Lee Martin had said that the remit was the outcome of * campaign against Mr. Grounds. The Bay of Islands branch, knowing Mr. Grounds as they now did, desired specially to indicate that they had the utmost confidence in his policy. The remit was then adopted. State Advances Not Wasted. Isx. Budden moved the following remL -orwarded by Otorohanga: "That the con ference has confidence in the Dairy Control Board in its efforts to deal with produce, and that the State be asked to provide advances for dairy producers to be recouped on sale* . He said that, as Government representation on the board had resulted in such great losa to the dairying industry, \t should provide financial assistance in the shape of temporary advances pending the receipt of payments for produce. The Government should not have been allowed to have representation on the board, but such would be justifiable if it would share in the financial risk. Mr. Harding seconded the motion pro »orma, and gave it short shrift, sayini it was like .an essay which the boy wrote on the subject of the crab, when he said it was a red fieh -that walked backwards. In ho particular was the essayist correct, ior the orab was not red, was not a fish, and did not walk backwards. "The remit," he' added, "says we have confidence in~the Control Board. We have not. It says we have confidence in the policy. We have not It says we should ask the Government for assistance. We •heuld not, for we don't want it.* (Langbter.) The remit was heavily defeated. Reconstruction of Board. Later in the evening Mr. Bruce (Cambridge) moved: «?That the conference considers that as* the produce handled is the property only of the dairy farmers, tlft Produce Board should consist only ofmemlere elected oy them." He said they had been afforded * good illustration lately of. having outsiders on the at the marketing end. He. considered that others than producers had no right to ideal with or Control the . disposal of produce. To have merchants and proprietary interest representatives %'is a big mistake, ? Mr. Walker seconded and said that ©njy> producers should be on the Producers' Board. ■Mr., Felsst considered that the remit presented an opportunity for the reconstruction of the board. The Government should not be represented, as it Tiad'no interest;/ The light Of proprietary concerns to .representation had disappeared altogether and the result the "farniers were ..after would be if the farmers themselves only werie ".solid about it. . MrY Wynyard said the remit was a step in the right direction. If the Producers' Board formed of producers made a mess of things they would have only themselves to blame. He considered the act required enlarging to permit the election of • dairy council composed of four; representatives from each ward, such council would not.be a control board, but a mouthpiece of the producers and its members should be the servants and not the masters of- the producers. Personally he had opposed absolute control as it was wrong ,in principle,' socialistic in tendency and its objects were impossible of attainment. Hβ had advocated the formation of a compulsory Dairy Fa/mere' Union. Th«r remit was carried. Another remit carried was: That the conference urges upon dairymen in the three wards to be contested next June to vote for members who are pledged to the reinstatement of the policy abandoned by the Dairy Control Board.*