LITTLE SUPPORT

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 230, 24 June 1932, Page 12

LITTLE SUPPORT

Dairy Board’s Utility Questioned BALLOT PROPOSAL Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, June 23. Little support was given to a proposal that a vote of the producers should be taken to decide whether they were in favour of disbanding or retaining the Dairy Control Board, when a remit from the Tui Dairy Company advocating such a vote came before the National Dairy Conference at Palmerston North this morning. The remit was as follows: “That a vote of the producers be taken on the question as to whether the producers are in favour of the retention, or disbanding of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board.”Mr. J. Boyce, of Glen Oroua, who moved the remit, said that given the necessary powers the National Dairy Association could do as well as the Dairy Produce Board was doing at present. Quoting from the last annual balance-sheet of the board, he said thai some of the items for salaries and administrative expenses seemed very large. The board was an export board, and had no right to expend money on the internal work of the industry. The balance-sheet showed £lB,OOO in hand, but nothing was heard about a reduction in the levy. He admitted, however, that the board had done quite a lot of good. ■ So far as freight reductions were concerned quite a number of them happened automatically and hardly through the agency of the board. Mr. J. G. Brechin, of Pahiatua, said the remit was not only reasonable, but one of the most necessary introduced at the conference. It did not matter whether the board had been of use or not. The board was set up for’ a specific purpose, and the remit was simply a request for a ballot to decide whether the board should continue or not. For the board’s own sake the remit should be allowed to go through. The chairman of the Dairy Produce Board, Mr. W. A. lorns, said the dairy industry should be proud of the work of the board. By means of savings and rebates in shipping freights, marine insurance and cold storage the industry had received 850 per cent, for the money exacted from the producers in the way of levies. If the board were done away with there would have to be another to take its place. The remit was lost. Board’s Financial Year. On behalf of the Bell Block Dairy Company, Mr. L. Rundle moved that it be a recommendation to the Dairy Control Board to put its balance forward so that it would synchronise with that of the National Dairy Association. Mr. Rundle said he had no quarrel with the board, for they were now reaping the benefit of the money , expended in advertising New Zealand produce. Nevertheless he felt that the intention of the board to hold a conference in October next was futile. The board held that it could not balance before the end of October, but he could not see the force of that argument. The Director of the Dairy Division had stated he was prepared to finalise his year at any time that would be most useful to.the industry. The secretary of, the Dairy Board, Mr. T. C. Brash,, said from its inception the board had decided to establish a set of figures that represented a complete statistical year. The board felt that that was essential. He did not think a conference such as the present the best to. criticise the board. Conferences were to be held in the various wards at which, delegates would be appointed to attend a cen? tral meeting of the board. He did not think it satisfactory to alter the financial year. The remit was carried.