TREATMENT OF MILK

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27400, 13 July 1954, Page 12

TREATMENT OF MILK

LIMIT ON WRIGHT’S COMPANY REMOVAL SOUGHT Wright’s Metropolitan Milk Company has asked the Christchurch Milk Board to remove the limitation on the quantity of milk it treats, claiming that the limitation imposes an unfair handicap on the company when the other main treating house, the Christchurch Milk Company, is not similarly limited. The case for Wright’s was put to the board yesterday by the company’s secretary (Mr P. L. C. Inder) and by Mr H. E. Royds, a member of the board of the company, and also of the board of the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Suppliers’ Co-operative Association. The suppliers’ association holds one-third of the shares in Wright’s. The manager of the Canterbury - Dairy Farmers’ Co-operative Milk ■ Supply Association (Mr L. R. Fowler) . also appeared before the board. Mr Inder said his company was ask- , ing the board to remove the limitation —at present 2600 gallons a day—or if ; that was not possible, to increase the < maximum output to 3000 gallons a day. Earlier in the meeting a letter had < been received from the chairman of the Milk Consumers’ Protection Association (Mr H. W. Thompson), who enclosed statements from both the companies on their outputs in recent years. Wright’s had given him figures for the last four years and the Christchurch company had given him figures for 1952- “Comparing the figures of both companies for those years you will note that the total of Wright’s shows an increase of 4.2 per cent., and the Christchurch company an increase of 13.7 per cent.,” Mr Thompson said. Recent changes in urban milk rounds had mainly resulted in gains for the Christchurch company, said Mr Inder. (Mr Royds said later that the Christchurch company had gained 1101 gallons in the last month while Wright’s had lost 48 gallons.) His firm’s treating house was operating well below capacity and he repeated the offer to make the whole of Wright’s plant available to the city to cope with the expansion of the city’s requirements. There was a status quo agreement between the houses, and also between the two suppliers’ organisations—the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Suppliers’ Co-operative Association and the Canterbury Dairy Farmers’ Co-opera-tive Milk Supply Company, Ltd. “There is no intention to expand Wright’s at the expense of the Christchurch company,” said Mr Inder. Mr Inder quoted from a report made to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr K. J. Holyoake) by the general manager of the New Zealand Milk Board (Mr D. J. Henderson). “In 1951,” said Mr Henderson’s report, “the Christchurch Milk Company, Ltd., found itself in financial difficulties, and the Government set up a committee of inquiry to examine its affairs. This committee recommended, among other things, that the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board should take some action to protect the Christchurch Milk Company against the competition of other par- * ties treating milk.” Wright’s was working in co-opera-tion with all parties, said Mr Inder; why should there be any limitation on its output? If it was still the policy of the board, however, to impose a limitation on Wright’s, the company considered it had established a claim for a revision of the 2600-gallon limit. On May 31 this year the company treated 2965 gallons, and the company expected a further expansion. Night deliveries had been instituted by vendors taking the company’s milk, and this had stepped up consumer demand. On behalf of the company, he asked for the limit to be raised to 3000 gallons a day. Commendatory references in “Town Milk,” the publication of the New Zealand Milk Board, to his company’s premises were quoted by Mr Inder. A report in the July issue of the publication on a visit to the premises by members of the New Zealand board said that the extra capacity of the b plant would make a welcome additior to the milk treating facilities ir Christchurch. is manifestly unfair to us—unde:

a guarantee to the Government to c supply the milk, and under a contract t to the vendors to supply their full re- £ quirements—to have our output » limited,” said Mr Inder. He asked that < the board, if it increased the author- j ised quantity of the company, to make t the increase retrospective to January 1, so that the company would be en- , titled to claim the treating house * margin on excess milk supplied this ‘ year. J “Limit Not Imposed by Board” The chairman of the board (Mr J. Mathison, M.P.) said the limitation was not imposed by the board but as a result of ah agreement between two producers’ organisations. The agreement allocated the supply in the ratio of 82 per cent, to 18 per cent. “I have never been happy about that agreement, but it appears that if we remove the limitation on Wright’s we should abolish the agreement between the producers’ organisations.” Mr Inder: That would not be in the : interests of the industry. When Mr Mathison asked why > Wright’s had not bought any of the treating houses which had come on the market —as the Christchurch company had done—Mr Royds said he did not realise the company’s gallonage limitation would not apply to the extra gallonage. The chairman gave an assurance that that was the case. “I can’t see why a competitive treating house, one-third owned by a producer company, should be limited, ' when another treating house, halfowned by a producer company, is not limited,” said Mr Royds. The Canterbury co-operative supply association, since the agreement between the two associations had been drawn up, had geared its production and sales to 82 per cent, of the total, said Mr Fowler. He asked whether Wright’s application was directed at ’ the proportion of trade still outside the treating houses. As for the 1100 i gallons the Christchurch company had . gained recently, that comprised trade ; with the Canterbury supply associaL tion, which was tied to the company. Mr Inder gave an assurance that any r increased gallonage granted his com--1 pany would not be at the expense of > the Christchurch company. i The requests made by Messrs Inder i and Royds were referred to the board’s emergency committee, which r will report back to the board.