MILK BUSINESS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 252, 23 October 1936, Page 9

MILK BUSINESS.

AUCKLAND SUPPLY. BILL UNDER FIRE. WILL THERE BE MONOPOLY? tIR. OSBORNE'S OPPOSITION. By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Auckland Metropolitan Milk Amendment Bill was given another 'run" in the House of Representatives co-night, but the second reading debate was again interrupted by the adjournment after two hours' discussion. Strong opposition came from both sides of the House, hut mainly from Opposition members. Continuing his second reading speech, which was interrupted by an adjournment on the last occasion the bill was before the House, Mr. A. G. Osborne (Government, Maaiukau) said that if the bill were passed there was a distinct possibility of a monopoly being created in the milk business. When the new council was elected next February there was a possibility of the personnel favouring municipalisation, and he thought the ideal system for Auckland would' be on the lines of the municipal scheme in Wellington. From correspondence he had received, and evidence before the committee to which the bill was referred, there were signs that the present Milk Council favoured a consolidation of private monopoly. If the amendments wete adopted he "believed that the livelihood of small producer-vendors «on the North Shore and in his own electorate would bo seriously jeopardised. Men, who were selling on their own behalf to-day, would have to sell through the Milk Council. That was the only body they would be able to sell to. Many of the small producers were afraid that they would be driven on to sustenance. There was a distinct possibility of a quota being put into operation. He took exception to the statement made by Mr. Anderton (Government, Eden) that the council was being defeated by the vendors giving over measure. Suggestions of the kind should he substantiated hy evidence. If the bill were passed the North Shore producers' milk would go into the common pool. Those on the outside of Birkenhead, for instance, would have to deliver their supply to Devonport. There would be insufficient business to permit of a pasteurising plant at North STiore, and the people would hr -e to receive whole or fresh milk after the vendors had had to travel 20 miles to and 110111 the central depots. The passing of the bill would consolidate the position of some of the large vending firms in Auckland, and monopoly would be established. When an extension of time was asked for Mr. Osborne, Dr. D. G. McMillan (Government, Dunedin West) objected, and Mr. Osborne had to resume his seat. Roskill Member's Advocacy. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Koskill) regretted that he could not support the views of the member for Manukau, and said that while he did not agree with some of the things the Milk Council had done, he could see that if the present drift was allowed to continue the public would find that they were charged an additional three halfpence or twopence for a quart of milk. The council had definite plans for zoning and pooling. It was found that to deliver milk in Auckland vendors had to traverse a distance of 4915 miles, but

with the zoning system in operation that distance would be reduced to 3570 miles and there would he an annual saving in benzine alone of £3500. Overlapping and wastage had to be eliminated. The consumers were paying for this and so were the roundsmen and producers and. vendors. The latter were nnable to get a decent price, hut they would get it in the event of the bill being passed. The roundsmen deserved to have a 40-hour week, but such conditions could not be maintained with the present retail price under the present chaotic conditions. Referring to the rounds, Mr. Richards said that the larger proportion consisted of the delivery of 29 gallons a day, the cost of labour being 8.86 d per. gallon. Other costs brought the distribution price to 11.96 d' per gallon. Under the zoning system proposed under the bill the rounds would be increased to 45 gallons and the distribution cost would be reduced to 7.96 d. With the passing of the bill the council would take immediate steps to zone its area. In reply to an interjection by an Opposition member, Mr. Richards said municipal control would be brought about when those who were not satisfied with the council exercised their votes and' elected a new council pledged to municipalisation. It would be their own fault if they did not get that system. - In quoting figures to show the gallonage of some of the vendors before the council came into existence, Mr. Richards said one vendor had supplied one gallon a day —"and perhaps he got Johnny up to deliver it before he went to school," he added. " Cow From Door to Door ?" Mr. Langstone, Minister of Lands: Did! he take the cow from door to door 1 (Laughter.) Mr. Richards said there was ample evidence to show that some monopolistic power -desired ±0 have the bill defeated,

Mr. Osborne: Well, why was clause 7 put in Mr. Richards said that if the bill did not pass there 'was 110 guarantee that the price of milk to Auckland consumers would not be increased in a few days. llig chaos that was in existence in the milk industry at the present time was due to the cunning development of milk being sent from Taranaki into Auckland. aided by modern transport facilities. The council had not been as sympathetic as it could have been, and the solution lay in the election next iebruary. The small producer-vendor had something to gain and nothing to lose. In conclusion Mr. Richards said he had no option but to support the bill or take the risk of certain private monopolistic forces coming into the fight again, and after getting a good grip then putting a pistol to the council and charging a goodwill in the same way as had been done with the radio business some years ago. Are Wellington Costs Lower? Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said he was surprised to hear Mr. Richards say that the Milk Council had not done its job too well in some respects, and yet under the amendments he was supporting a measure giving the council much wider powers. He would like to know whether the Wellington system lowered the cost to the consumer. He did not think so, and the same conditions would apply to Auckland. He was of opinion that the bill was an attack 011 the small producer, and that if the measure were passed he would lose all his assets. If a scheme had been proposed on the same lines as that adopted in Wellington, it would have been to the benefit of the producer, vendor and consumer. Mr. D. McDougall (Independent, Mataura) said it was quite evident that Auckland was a city divided against itself. Some of the members wished to see a municipal supply and others wanted to protect the unfortunate owners of a few cows which would help them to get boots and clothing for their children. He was against pasteurisation. The bill should not be pushed through the House before the new council was elected. The small man would be smothered in the interests of monopoly. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) opposed the bill because it went in the direction of creating a monopoly. Wellington was in a different position from Auckland on account of not having farm land close at hand. Wellington could not get a good supply without pasteurisation, but under the Wellington scheme those close to the city who had milk to sell were not dealt with harshly. He advised the promoters of the bill to make haste slowly. Then they would probably reach as good a settlement as Wellington city had made with its nearby farmers. The bill would have his support if it preserved the rights of these farmers.