CONTROL TANGLE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 126, 1 June 1927, Page 10

CONTROL TANGLE

MR. GOODFELLOW'S ATTITUDE

AN IMPORTANT REVIEW

One who is in no way directly concerned with the dairy industry, in an article written to "The Post," takes Mr. Goodfellow to task over his recently published statement of the New Zealand dairy produce position at Home as he found it on hig recent visit to London. The writer has always looked upi/a JbJs great dairy-produce export trade as of national importance, primarily, of course, to producers, secondarily as affecting the welfare of the Dominion as a whole, and has been a close student of control as applied to export of dairy produce since the incentive to so apply it followed on control of the meat export trade. In dealing with Mr. "Goodfellow's revie^, the writer remarks that "it has been said that "-the fact that Mr. Goodfellow was one of the founders of the control movement adds weight to his views.' Is the statement a frank review? Does the fact of Mr. Goodfellow having been one of the founders of the control movement add weight to his views? Or does it detract from the weight attaching to his expressions of fact and opinion? Let us ponder and see. "The first point that must strike the reader of the statement is that Mr. Goodfellow obviously regards as either dishonest or foolish all parties concerned except himself, and presumably those of the members of the board who have up till the recent abandonment of price-fixing supported his policy of control. Notwithstanding all that has happened, he and they are the only persons ■ concerned who possess any wisdom and common-sense. The obvious answer is that Mr. Goodfellow is on his defence, and his attitude is by not means an uncommon one to persons so situated. It is suggested that the very generality and comprehensiveness of his attack, instead of adding weight to his views, show that his statements and his inferences, giving all credit to his honesty of intention, are those of a violent partisan and must be regarded with suspicion. "Mr. Goodfellow says for example that there was no boycott of New Zealand butter in London. Surely all the evidence available negatives this statement.' And if more is wanting than the facts as from time to time reported from London we have the statement of the Hon. Mr. Downie Stewart published, in .the .'Evening Post' almost immediately after the delivery of his speech at Feilding that it was known to him before the Prime Minister reached England that London capital was being employed for the purpose of developing the importation into England of butter from other countries than New Zealand. " Mr. Goodfellow says that the scheme' of absolute control has been wrecked'b^' dissension \vjthin the industry and by farmers themselves. Assuming this to be correct, what else could Mr. Goodfellow and his fellow-support-ers of coiitrbl' expect' when the result of absolute control is to take away from a large'number :of manufacturers of butter against their w^ill the produce of their labours, and to deny the owners the right to any voice in the disposal of their produce? Especially when those manufacturers honestly believe— and it is suggested the results show — that the effect of such control is disastrous, to, their interests; THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE. "Mr. Goodfellow endoavours to place responsibility ■ upon. the .Liberal and Labour Parties for the fiasco because (he says) they made such a determined stand for-the 'democratic principle of the one man. one vote' in connection with the election of members of the board that a compromise had to be effected. Again Mr. Goodfellow seems to lose Bight of the basic principle of justice that every dairy farmer, whether his holding is large or small, is vitally interested, and contributes to the levy imposed by the board on all dairy produce exported. Why, then, should he be deprived of his personal vote? Though one is > not concerned in the political aspect of the dispute it may well be suggested that any other system of election of members of the board would have been opposed to all principles of democratic rule, and that if the Government had not held that same view, they were (or should have been) strong enough to prevent oven a combination of Labour ■ and Liberal parties from being effective. "Mr. Goodfellow says that the majority of his colleagues on the board, in his absence, made a serious blunder in not abandoning the pool when they abandoned price-fixing. How could tho board possibly abandon the pool in the middle of the. season with large quantities of controlled butter in the hands of 'the board's agents' in London, and further large quantities in transit? No doubt Mr. Goodfellow's own company would have had no difficulty in making its arrangements because of his personal touch with tho London market and his company's former organisation in London. But what of all the numerous smaller companies which have not the same facilities? HAD THE FOOL BEEN ABOLISHED. "To abolish the pool in the middle of the season would have placed them in a worse position than ever—to say nothing of the unfairness that might have resulted to some of the producers by reason of an .undue proportion of their butter having been sole), by the 'pool,' or not sold as the case might be, and the price of butter taking a sudden rise or fall as the result of the pool being abandoned. "Mr. Glodfellow's present position can be easily understood. He was the founder (or one of the founders) and the mainspring, of control. The policy of control has resulted in a miserable failure. Now to anyone reading between the lines, it would seem that he wants the producers to place themselves in his hands again in the formation of a marketing company for the purpose of making another' attempt to control the disposal of all the dairy produce manufactured by the producers or their co-operative companies. While that is a perfectly legitimate enterprise because at least it would be free from the element of compulsion upon those that were unwilling to join, it is nevertheless suggested that the experiment would be a very dangerous, one, especially if it followed so soon after the deplorable fiasco of the last few months. Is it an experiment that is likely to restore the goodwill of our clientele in our best market? PRICE-FIXING IMPLIED. One other observation: Mr. Goodfellow says that the board's policy "had been before the board on a number of occasions, the precise policy on this point having been defined on 14th July, 1926, when it was decided, in accordance with the policy of the board, aB denned in a statement to the Prime Minister on 6th July, 1926, "that pricefixing should -o applied." This statement, it is suggested, calls for a prompt reply from the Prime Minister. It has been said over and over again, and apparently not denied, that both the board and the Government (or members of the Government) had assured the producers and the that absolute control would only be brought into operation if. circumstances of emergency demanded. It is known now, though probably the producers did not understand it then, that absolute control implies

price-fixing. There was an amendment of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act before Parliament last year which passed only on 23rd August. DiC the board or the Government (if Mr. Goodfellow's statement 1- correct that the Prime Minister knew of the board's policy on 6th July) inform the producers or Parliament of the board's declared intention to bring "price-fixing" into operation at once?