CHANGES IN MILK ROUNDS

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27376, 15 June 1954, Page 10

CHANGES IN MILK ROUNDS

Board Hears Views Of Consumers SPECIAL MEETING LATER After hearing representations from the Milk Consumers’ Protection Association, the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board decided yesterday afternoon to consider at a special meeting on Friday the distribution of rounds in Riccarton and Fendalton which have been sold to the board. The board had before it decisions of its emergency committee. It was stated that the offer of seven vendors to take over the Riccarton round of Mrs V. M. Henderson had been accepted by the committee. All but one of the vendors obtained their milk from the Christchurch Milk Company, Ltd. The other vendor obtained his supplies from Wright’s treating house, where the whole of Mrs Henderson’s supplies— : 76 gallons retail and two gallons shop-dairy—had previously been obtained.

The committee also reported action in respect of two Fendalton rounds formerly owned by Mr T. C. Smith. Approximately half of the 200-gallon round had been sold to Mr D. - A. Cherry to enable him to operate it and his present round with Mr W. A. Sellers, fon the understanding that they entered into partnership. The other round had been sold to Mr G. C. Fuller. The Christchurch Milk Company, Ltd., had previously agreed to accept Mr Smith’s offer to sell it his treating house.

Mr H. W. Thompson, president of the Milk Consumers’ Protection Association, said that under these arrangements Wright’s would lose not less than 50 gallons of milk and the Christchurch Milk Company would gain 230 gallons. He suggested that the Riccarton round should be restored to Wright’s either directly or through a vendor. Mr Wright, he said, was feluctsntly willing to do this to keep faith with customers, but he did not wish to upset vendors. It would therefore be better to give- it to a vendor or to authorise the present vendors to a certain amount of their supplies from Wright’s. If this was not done the vendor now drawing from Wright’s would no doubt find that the demand for his milk was increasing. In Fendalton, Mr Thompson suggested, an alternative licence might be given vendors so they could draw from either source.

“I don’t l hink that is practicable,” said the chairman, Mr J. Mathison, M.P., referring to Mr Thompson’s suggestion for the Fendalton rounds.

“I respectfully ask that it be considered.” said Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson said that the board had made an effort to keep a proper balance between treating houses but the large gains made by the Christchurch Milk Company had the effect that other treating houses had been ignored. The size of the Milk Company was now such that it was able to devour the Devonvale Dairy treating house in one bite. The acquisition of Devonvale had completely distorted the balance so that vendors could now virtually draw from only one source and could not satisfy all thein- customers. Posi.ion of Fanners “I would ask you to consider one angle,” said Mr Thompson. “You can control the treating houses, the vendors and the consumers, but can you control the farmer? Before the policy of eliminating all opposition is put in'o effect, you should consider that the Canterbury Dairy Farmers’ Cooperative Milk Supply Company, Ltd. holds half the shares in the Milk Company and has a factory on the north bank of the Wairrakariri. If there is an argument between the Milk Company and the supply association the milk company may find itself in not a very strong position. If Wright’s are there with their supply association it might be a help in time of trouble.”

The chairman: That was the justification for the retention of private armies.

“People are uneasy and full of doubt.” continued Mr Thomps~n. “They look on the fall of Devonvale —a model of its kind—the whittling away of Wrights Metropolitan Milk Company and at the dual capacity of some members of this board and they ask themselves this question: Is it the policy of the Milk Board—a responsible public body—actively to aid and abet the Canterbury Metropolitan Milk Company in its aim of a monopoly. These doubts can best.be dispelled by the board granting promptly the reasonable requests of these Fendalton and Riccarton- residents.”

Mr J. E. Tait asked whether at the meeting held last week in Fendalton any authoritative analysis as to the quality of the milk from the two supplies had been available. Mr Thompson: No. People go on their sense of taste. Some of us are so old-fashioned that vfe prefer what we like.

Mr R. B. Cape-Williamson, who supported Mr Thompson, said there was only one issue—it was the liberty of the individual. “You sav you shalt drink our milk and shalt not have any vendor except that which we supply. We say those are coercive demands. ...” He asked for a spirit of compromise.

“We want the right to say we want that milk even if it is poison, providing it doesn’t menace anybody’s freedom.” ’ said Mr Cape-Williamson. The chairman said that thev would, all agree with what jWr Cape-William-son said, but it was quite impracticable for everybody to have complete freedom. “I don’t blame Mr Cape-Wil-liamson if he wants to drink inferior milk but I don’t think he should have the right to impose it on children.” Miss M. B. Howard. said that through the transfer of rounds. Wright’s more often had the advantage in gallonage than the milk company. The board then decided to defer a decision until Friday.