DAIRY CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 17, 21 January 1927, Page 10

DAIRY CONTROL

THE LONDON AGENCY

GOVERNMENT NOMINEE

HIS KETIREMENT SOUGHT

j . The opinion that Mr. S. Pateri ion, the Government nominee on

the London agency of the Dairy

■ Produce Control Board, should be j retired from his position, as he is .not supporting the board's policy, 1 was expressed in a motion passed at ' the meeting of the board on "Wednesday. The matter is to be brought ■ before the notice of the Acting ■' Prime Minister. '

The meeting was not open to the Press, but '-"the Dairy Produce Exporter" gives a resume of the main proceedings.

The chairman (Mr. W. Grounds), who has just returned from England, said that, despite the compromises that had teen, effected, he was satisfied that, given unified action on the part of the board and the London agency, it was possible now- to definitely demonstrate the value of the control movement to producers. Steady action. only was required to make the position quite clear to the country. Mr. Grounds reported fully upon \the position in the London agency, the constitution of which required complete reconsideration, which, however, need not be entered upon until the return of the producer members, as arranged. In connection with the Government nominee (Mr. 8. Paterson), he was satisfied that no one directly interested in the merchandising of dairy produce should have a seat on that agency. The present nominee had declared himself as definitely opposed to the board's -policy. His continued presence on the agency^ therefore, was -a serious handicap to the board, and a, menace to the development of the industry.

MUST OBEY BOARD'S POIiIOY. ' After the board had heard the report \ it was moved—

That the Acting Prime Minister be

written to pointing out that Mr. Pat-

i. erson, the Government nominee on ' the London agency, is not supporting i the policy of the board, and is mak-

; ing the position in London very diffi- ' cult; and the board considers that Mr. 1 Paterson should be retired from the

agency.

Mr. W. Goodfellow said he considered the worst feature of the position was that Mr. Paterson drew a salary of £1000 a year from the producers. He was entitled to his own views, but while drawing that salary as a member of the board he should either obey the board's policy as laid down or resign.' Mr. J. R.. Corrigan considered that Mr. Coates had ground for a definite grievance against Mr. Paterson, from whom as a Government representative he had trie right to except full, accurate, and unbiased information. Apparently that had not been given, and the Prime Minister had been misled.

Mr. Grounds endoresd this view. Mr. Paterson had made himself the head and front of the .organised representations that were made to the Prime Minister,' without advising the agency of his intentions. The volume of representations made to the Prime Minister necessarily created misgivings in Mr. Coates's mind, and Mr. Paterson had therefore placed the Prime Minister in an extremely awkward position! he was entitled to have as much a grievance against Mr. Paterson: as had the board.

The resolution -yiras 'carried unanimously.

It was decided to consider the reorganisation of the London agency at the first full meeting of the board after the return of the present producer members of the board in June next.

CHAIRMAN BEVIEWS POSITION.

• In a review of the board's policy in London, published in .the "Exporter," Mr. Grounds says:—

"I have no desire to revive any controversy that may have taken place in New Zealand during my absence, but I feel constrained td refer to a question which I noticed by newspaper cuttings was asked at a- Taranaki meeting. It ran somewhat as follows: 'Has the opposition, in New Zealand weakened the board in London?' This should be answered in a definite affirmative. It very considerably weakened the board .in London. Such divisions on policy offer a great opportunity for disintegration. I was in a position to observe the endless reactions, in many spheres, arising from opposition activities at each end. It is futile to expect the beat results if energies have to be expended in overcoming intrigue. The sooner this undertaking is regarded as a purely business organisation, guided by business considerations, and freed from political provincial, and personal considerations better for all concerned. .... I have been struck with the unanimity oi. approval expressed in conversation by English and American business men not connected with, our dairy business, when I have outlined the course we have in view. The extreme difficulty of unifying farming interests is generally recognised, but at has to be done if we. would retain our hold a-d proy.l&e for the development the country needs. . \ *. •

THE LONDON MANAGER.

"I consider it the most disreputable feature of the past controversy that an official and servant of the bo-.rd should have been subjected to an unjustified and contumelious attack, not in reality because of any personal failing on his part, but as a means of breaking down the board's policy. That anyone associated with the producers' interests should have, associated themselves with this personal attack is to be sincerely regretted. Some of New Zealand's best friends, associated with the trade in London expressed surprise that Mr. Wright retained the position, and thus exposed himself to this attack for so long. New Zealand producers have reason to be thankful that his usual grit Aid. not forsake him even in this trial. His best/friends will make no claim to perfection in him. He is a keen Scottish business man, trained in Glasgow, which is known to be a hard school. He has a great capacity for wor ':, finding his greatest pleasure in doing it -well. Like any good Scotsman he loves to drive a good bargain, which it should be remembered is not for himself, but for the New Zealand producer whose service he has undertaken.

"All those who have been associated with Mr. Wright regard his integrity as unimpeachable. He. is prepared at all times to discuss procedure and policy ■with anyone associated ■with the business who desires to advance an alternative proposition. He argues keenly and is prepared to accept proof tnat his ideas arc!, wrong, but if that proof is not forthcoming he expects his own conclusions to be accepted. Let it bo remembered that every strong and estimable, characteristic has its defects, and the brilliance or excellence of the quality occasionally serves to illuminate those defects. We would have been poor guardians of the interests entrußted.to our care if we had been prepared to sacrifice the qualities to avoid minor defects. A well-balanced agency can remedy the defects without sacrificing the qualities. ANTI-CONTROL SUBTERFUGE. "It is not necessary to outline the •arly steps taken to develop this idea

of antagonism to the manager prior to my arrival in London, although these ciVi be traced with reasonable correctness. But, subsequent to my arrival in London, cablegrams were sent stating that the trado objected to Mr. Wright. There is no doubt that this was represented to Mr. Coates by certain members of the trade, but probably with greater frequency by the Government representative on the agency, who never wearied in its assertion. What soon became clear to me— that the move was only a subterfuge to break down control —was proved at the joint conference of some members of the trade, and ourselves, befoie the Prime Minister. At this meeting, when their opposition to Mr. Wright was examined, it was found that none of these delegates had been iv business contact with him. They admitted that the objections they had voiced were based upon what they had heard. Surely an extraordinary basis for the advocacy of views by a supposedly representative delegation! Further examined upon this point, they admitted that their real objection lay against the system of control and price-fixing.

SATISFIED WITH MR. WEIGHT.

"Coincident with these representations, or, what woula probably be more correct, as an integral basis for them, it was well known that the large distributors, who had for some years known and worked with Mr. J. B. Wright, were satisfied of the efficiency and fairness with which the policy would be administered if he remained in charge. It was also known that they would not have been satisfied if any other man had been selected to take his place, especially a trade man. For in this Mr. Wright's position was unique. He lenew the trade, but was not of it. It is not difficult to discern the inspiration of this suggestion of his deposition. ...

"It may b- plainly stated that all the best interests in the trade were opposed to this personal attack on Mr. Wright, and any message conveying other impressions to board members is a sheer misstatement of the facts. I strongly urge the setting aside of any thought that Mr. Wright desires to dominate the policy or procedure of the board. His supreme desire is that his work shall be well and successfully done. He has strong opinions, based upon hia experiences, of what the procedure should be, now that the board has decided upon its policy. What needs to be done is not to Btultify his capacity but to amplify it, by providing complementary capacity to the London agency."