CO-OPERATION AND SELF-HELP

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 261, 29 July 1921, Page 6

CO-OPERATION AND SELF-HELP

FARMERS’ UNION PROPOSALS

PRODUCERS’ SHIPPING LINE

A BIG MARKETING SCHEME

Yesterday the New Zealand Farmers’ Union Conference arrived, at exceedingly important decisions. After a lengthy debate on the establishment of a producers shipping line, it resolved to advocate that the scheme should be energetically proceeded with, and that as soon as the Producers’ Committee, which has charge of the negotiations, could make its proposals public, a further conference of the uuion should be held to consider the project. . The conference also carried a remit advocating the institution of a national co-operative marketing scheme for wool, meat, and dairy produce: and resolved, to recommend the farmers of the Dominion to take the necessary stops to have their own retail shops for the sale of meat in England. The opinion of Mr. W. D. Lysnar, MT., that the slump in meat was engineered by the meat combines was endorsed by the conference.

PRODUCERS’ SHIPPING LINE ATTITUDE OF~FREEZING COMPANIES. Mr. W. J. Polson (Wanganui) moved: “That this conference is in favour of a State-aided Dominion shipping company.” Mr. D. Bates (North Canterbury) moved the following amendment: “That owing to the high price of freight on produce, and .the difficulty of getting it away, the producers, merchants, and importers should take into serious consderation the advisability of finding their own shipping.” Captain Colbeck (Auckland) said that he must vote against any remit suggesting State aid that went beyond legislation enabling farmers to raise the money. There must be tho guarantee of power to make a levy on exports. Probably it would be quite unnecessary to make the levy if the guarantee was there. A lew on exports was a very different thing from an export tax. An export tax he regarded as an abomination. Dividends from the shipping scheme should not be thought of. The scheme should aim nt giving service, and the farming community would have its dividend in the form of reduction in freights. Mr. A. E. Harding (Auckland) believed that the whole of the people of New Zealand would have to lie united if tho , scheme was to be a success. He was convinced that Government assistance would bo needed in a case where big combines had to be combated. The conference, he considered, should leave the question with confidence to tho Producers’ Committee that had been set up already. Mr. A. Robinson (Wanganui) said that he had always been in favour of an export lew to obtain the funds necessary to provide shipping for the producers. He thought that imports also should be levied upon. Ho understood that the Producers’ Committee had made certain uronosals which had been cabled Home for the approval of the Prime Minister. He was anxious that tho opportunity to express an opinion on the proposals before a commencement was made with their execution should be conserved to the Farmers’ Union and other bodies interested. Mr. G. P. Johnston gave notice of the following amendment: “That in view of the isolated geographical position of New Zealand, and the unsatisfactory shipping facilities, this conference is of opinion that the time is now ripe for the promotion of a co-operative shipping company owned jointly by Government, mercantile, and producing interests. Mr. IV. D. Lysnar, M.P. (Gisborne), gave notice of this further amendment: 'That in the opinion of this conference the establishment of a producers’ shipping company should be energetically proceeded with; and that os soon as the Producers’ Committee can make its scheme public a further conference of the Dominion Farmers’ Union be convened to consider tho scheme." Mr. J. W. Polson (Wanganui) said that a very serious aspect of the matter under discussion was that in any shipping scheme the producers were going to meet with strong opposition from an important body of vested interests. Most of the producers of the country had already received an indication of the attitude of these interests from the fact that they had had sent to them a pamphlet containing a report of the speech delivered by tho Primo Minister of Australia in extenuation of the loss made by his own State shipping line. The freezing companies were at the beginning responsible for the shipping scheme now being considered in this country. They had brought down, through Mr. De Lautour, a scheme that they had unanimously adopted. This ’scheme was placed before the Producers Committee, and made use of, and investigated by that committee. Now the freezing companies were beginning to realise that the producers of Now Zealand/ were determined to have something in the nature of a shipping line, and that something concrete had been put before the Government; and the producers found Mr. De Lautour at the head of a deputation representative of tho freezing interests going before the Government. and condemning the scheme of the Producers’ Committee. Immediately the vested interests among the freezing companies found that the farmers meant business, the motion that they had passed with their tongue in their cheeks, asking for a producers’ shipping lino was scrapped. What did the companies suggest in substitution? J hey suggested something in the nature of a guarantee of a stipulated amount of freights to some uew lino that might come in nt a reduced figure; and they quoted what had been done in the past with the Tvser line, when tlys Tyser line had been, brought in to reduce freights. But what had been the policy of tho Tvser line? That lino became established in New Zealand, and joined the shipping combine. As long as human nature remained what, it was, that was thn sort of thing that would happen every tune a proposition of the kind I was nut into effect, in New Zealand. Tho i producers would bo asked to accept anjI thing but a line 'owned and governed |by the producers themselves. They ! should never accept such a thing. (Api pinuse.) Finally, by the withdrawal of al] tho other proposals, the way was cleared for Mr. Lvsuar’s amendment to go to the meeting, and that amendment was carried.

CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING

CONTROLLED THROUGH BOARDS. Mr. J. G. Anderson (Pelorus) moved: “That this union advocates a national cowieraiive marketing scheme for wool, meat, and dairy produce, to be controlled bv producers through boards ou which the Government, have representation. to bo finnneed by special taxes earmarked for the above purpose, the balance to be used for a sinking fund, etc., for a Government loan to provide a Dominion shipping line, the said line to be controlled by representatives of each of the above industries, together with representatives nominated by the Government.” ilr. Anderson said that the proposal ho had brought forward was based upon

tho Danish scheme. It was suggested that tho producers should practically handle their own business. There was no suggestion of forming one committee to control all New Zealand produce. Wool. meat, and dairy produce would be dealt with by separate boards, of, say, five members, nominated by the Farmers’ Union, tho dairy associations, and the Government. It must be recognised tb.at Government representation was necessary, because Government assistance— though not State control—was to bo invoked. State- co-operation was wanted. The boards would appoint a committee of the best brains in the industries interested, and these committees would sit permanently in London. Part of tho proposed levy, if a levy was made, would be divided between expenses af administration of the marketing scheme and a sinking fund for repayment of a Government loan. Bv setting up a shipping line the farmers would bo inviting a cut-rate war. Tho compulsory principle would therefore have to be applied to ensure that the produce for carriage was obtained. He was not advocating anything now. Compulsion was necessary to-day if tho trusts were to be defeated. The dairy industry was “on a good wicket at present, but he had been authoritatively informed that Adraour and Co. were already beginning negotiations to deal with dairy produce. Unless the dairy people took steps to protect themselves, they would be in the same position as the sheen farmers were in. _ Mr W J Polson (Wanganui) seconded the remit. Ho said that when the frozen meat prices at Home were compared with what the producer here received it was apparent that something was wrong—that the trusts and combines had got control at the English end Tho wholesale price was not giving the Ne Zealand farmer a profit, “’’d theproht from tho retail price was going ; into the wrong pockets. The proposition conin tho remit should, he thought he referred to the Dominion Executive for analysis. The chief problems were finance and tho obtaining of a chain of retail shops at the other f £ nd ’ rne) im’prfpoyd to’bring up the formulate concrete proposals. U 1 farmers were -prepared to help them selves within two years one fourth o.i (heir number would bo bnnkript a J d Been XX pro torefrainfrom tliejr salvation of the farmers was for them W. Mulholland (Darfield) said Ihnt th-re was a multiplicity of co-opera-vCSations in New Zealand but no co-operation between them. He thought that reference to the Government could verv well be cut out of the motion. It was time that the farmers realised they had feet to stand on. They should go ahead and organise a gigantic marketing scheme They had to a great extent the co-operative institutions necessary to ge into touch with the fanners and collect (heir produce; but thire they stopped. What was needed was a marketing association. Ono of the things the producers were going to be up against when they ♦darted this Business was vested interests, which said to the retailer: "A ou touch that fellow’s stuff and you 11 get nothing from us.” The New Zealand farmers ought to have such an organisation that they would lie able to tell the retailer he could afford to take no notice. The additional storage accommodation built during the war would help th® execution of the co-operative marketing Mr. R. D. Duxfield (Auckland) moved that all the words after “boards” should be deleted, and that in their pine:- there should be inserted the words "with proper powers to lie obtained by legislation." He did not see why the producers should not striki- out for themselves, and have nothing to do with the Government. The sooner they managed their own business the more satisfactorily it would turn out. Mr. J. S. Jessop (Napier) seconded the amendment. Air. A. Robinson (Wanganui) said flint lie dreaded Government control of any of the producers’ schemes. Once Government control came, with it came political •influence. Tho farmers w,-re not at all certain that they had got a fair deal i<> the matter of Imperial supplies. Further, he did not want, the Government to tax him for carrying on a business of tho kind proposed. Th- money he spent on the scheme he wished to have some control over. ’''Mr. J. H. .Toll (Tnrannki) snid that for any small tax imposed upon the producer the producer would be reimbursed ssirra.l hundreds per '■ent. The position o' the Dominion producers was flue to the manipulations of trusts. The farmers must have their own shipping line end control their produce "till if. went down the consumers’ throats.’’ Mr Duxfield’s amendment was carried. Mr. Ilobinson made nn i-xplanafion to the effect that his remarks in reference to Imperial supplies concerned Imperial officers controlling New Zealand meajr nnd did not concern any New Z'nland officer. RETAIL SHOPS'AT HOME COMMENTS ON MEAT SLUMP. Mr. W. D. Lysnar brought up the question of establishing retail shops for the sale of meat in England. Ho pro(>osed the following motion.—

“That as tho fact that the present elump in New Zealand meat Values was brought about at o. period when the retail prices of same on the English market were, according to official data, on the increase, shows that the slump is not justified, and that neither the consumers in England nor the producers in New Zealand are benefiting by it, this conference would urge for the favourable consideration of the farmers in this Dominion tho question of forming a Producers’ Association with tho object inter alia of (1) establishing retail shops for tho sale of their moat in England; (2) establishing some system by which the producers can draw a reasonable sum against their meat pending its realisation in England; (3) that this conference is of opinion that the present slump is being engineered by the big meat combinations operating in New Zealand and England, and the New Zealand Government should bo urged to see that everything possible is done to eliminate them out of our meat trade.” Mr. Lysnar said he thought too mueh blame was being laid just now on the high freights and the high freezing charges. Attention should be centred on the trusts. The freights and freezing charges amounted to 3d. a pound. It was better to focus attention for the time being on the shilling that was lost at the other end. The slump was being engineered by combines while the retail price was on the rise. In February last, the month preceding the commencement of the slump, the Higa Commissioner’s figures showed that the retail price, jwr pound of beef (ribs) in London was Is. 5d., of mutton (leg) Is. Id., and of mutton (loin). Is. 4d. Tho March quotations were: Rib beef, Is. od.; leg of mutton and loin of mutton, Is. 4d. For April, the month after tl.e commencement of the slump, the quotations wore: Beef. Is. 7d.; mutton, leg, Is. 6d., and mutton, loin, Is. 4d. A cutting from the London “Times” for .tune showed the retail price of mutton, legs, as Is. 2d. to Is. Bd. Theretei mutton had risen fourpence a pound retail, while the farmers in New Zealand had been experiencing a slump. If the farmers allowed this to go on, a very big section—not less .than onefourth—would be bankrupt in two years. If tho farmers, putting out over 87 per cent, of the exports of the Dominion, wont down, the country- would go down. Whatever the farmers did they must do with controlling power from this end, and through paid servants who could be discharged at any time. The farmers should have their own shops to put them in direct touch with the retailers. While New Zealand meat was bringing the prices he had quoted, English ribs of beef were selling at 2s. Bd., that was. Is. Id. higher than New Zealand beef; mutton, legs, were bringing 2s. 7d., Is. Id. higher; mutton, Joins, 35., Is. Bd. higher. If the New Zealand farmers realised that to-day a large proportion of their meat was being sold at those higher prices, they would have an idea of what huge profits some people were making. It was right that he should mention that as the law stood in England, if a butcher sold imported meat ho must tag it; but tho farmers were aware that conditions like that were often honoured more in tho breach than in tho observance. A large quantity of meat sold as English was imported. Mr. Lysnar finally remarked that New Zealand was sending to England tho best meat in tho world. • Mr. TV. J. Polson (Wanganui) seconded the motion. He favoured the establishment of depots to feed tLo retail shops rather than the establishment of a chain of retail shops, on account of the difference in cost.

Ur. Lysnar said he had considered the matter carefully, and come to the conclusion that tho shop plan afforded the better means of fighting the combines. He was not convinced that tho financial obstacle was as great as was suggested. The head of a local bank had said to him only tho other day: “If you can establish the value of your moat at Home —what you ere sure to get—l will give you a million.” The other people could have their thousands of retail shops. Why should the farmers not have theirs? Ho was prepared to insert tho words "or depots” after the words “retail shop." Mr. D. Bates (Canterbury) asked what chance the conference would have of putting the scheme into effect if it carried the motion.

A voice: More hope than if we don’t carry it.

Mr. Bates asked why the farmers should, not take advantage of the existence of present associations instead of setting up another big organisation. He doubted very much, the possibility of carrying out the scheme.

Jlr. A. Robinson (Wanganui) said he had no doubt that the retail shops could be arranged for, if the meat was there to sell; and he was strongly in favour of embarking on some such scheme as was proposed. Mr. J. A. Macpherson (Oamaru) thought that the sooner the problem was tackled the better. The greatest loss was nt the other end. It did not matter whether the farmers got their meat Home for nothing if they still delivered it “into the hands of the Philistines."

Mr. J. G. Anderson (Pelorus) wished to know whether some form of compulsion was proposed. He thought Mr. Lysnar might “drop the voluntary business” in favour of compulsion and have some scheme evolved that would provide for Government assistance without Government control. Then, he believed, a big step would have been taken. Bui unless the loyalty of all the farmers could bo ’depended on, success could not be hoped for. Mr. Gregor M'Gregor (Waitotara) asked what ihe farmers were going to do with their produce if they took notice of all the objections raised when a man brought, forward a scheme to help them. He hoped Mr. Lysnar and those with him would receive all possible assistance in their effort to improve the mar. keting of New Zealand produce l . Mr._Lysnar replied. All the questions raised, he said, had been difficulties of detail. The farmers would just have to get over- those difficulties. Were tho farmers going to manage their business properly or go bankrupt? Compulsion or voluntarism was a question that could bo left to a committee he would proixise. If compulsion was found necessary, then if should be applied. Mr. Lysnar's motion was carried witlu out dissent. Mr. Lysnar then moved for the formation of the following committee "to take the steps necessary to carry out the scheme"; Messrs. H. Morrison. W. J. Polson, K. D. Duxfield, R. S. Chadwick, G. L. Marshall, W. D. Lysnar, J. G. Anderson, J. A. Macpherson, J. Bitchener, M.P., and D. Jones, M.P. The commit toe was agreed to. It was left to North Canterbury, Southland and Otago each to nominate one member.