N.Z. DAIRY BOARD.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18675, 26 April 1926, Page 3

N.Z. DAIRY BOARD.

♦ POLICY OF SILENCE. (froit OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, March 10. "The British Australian, and New Zealander" administers gentle reproof to those who are looking after the interests of the lately-established New Zealand Dairy Board. Thus: — "Perkaps a little unwisely, the New Zealand Dairy Board hare kept peculiarly silent concerning the policy they intend to put into .operation next August. The result has been that opposition propaganda and damaging criticism' have got a very good start. A writer in such an influential newspaper as "The Manchester Guardian," had some very hard things to say of the Board, and of what he considered its policy. ' New Zealand butter finds a powerful competitor in the North of England, and it is rather a pity that an opposition writer should have got in first. "It is ,of course, difficult for New Zealanders to realise what a lot depends upon judicious propaganda in this country, and what a great amount of irrevocable damage can be done by an uninformed and uncorrected writer. It is, therefore, satisfactory to find some of the adverse criticism answered in a cablegram, from Wellington during the past week. The Board, in this message, defines its policy in marketing as one of service and not of monopoly for the purpose of raising prices. The policy will not meet with the approval of "dairy produce merchants, although they will probably face the inevitable with a good grace, just as the meat trade have got used to the operations of the Meat Producers' Board. The important matter is whether the general public will have to pay more on the average of a year's operations than they have in the past for their New Zealand butter and cheese. Apparently they will not. . "Under the circumstances, therefore, it appears a wise policy to let the public know this on every possible occasion. The operations of the Dairy Board are what is known as a 'live subject.' They : have a human interest, and any information in regard to them would have wide publicity. There will be a great deal more adverse criticism of the Board before the month of August, and for the safe of the fair name of New Zealand, it would appear & wise policy to answer this criticism and to stress those features of the Board's proposed operations which will be to the advantage of the general public."