DEMAND FOR REPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 127, 2 June 1927, Page 10

DEMAND FOR REPEAL

TAEANAKI FAEMEES'

STAND

A DIVIDED BOARD

That this meeting is of the opinion that the Control Board should cease to exist and that the Government be asked, to repeal the present New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Act.

The above was carried as an amendment to a motion; the occasion was a meeting of 140 suppliers of Joll 's Co-oper-ative Dairy Factory, held at Hawera on Monday. Mr. J. B. Murdoch presided. He explained that the meeting had been called by the directors with the object of obtaining, in view of the existing controversy relating to the Dairy Produce Export Board, an indication of the general opinion held by the company's suppliers as to whether the marketing clauses of the Act should be eliminated or whether support should be given to possible endeavours to have the board done away with. Mr. Murdoch, according to the "Hawera Star" (whose full report of the meeting is here condensed) said that while it had been generally recognised that the Bill gave wide powers to the board, it had not been thought that the members of the board would adopt the extreme attitude of attempting to control the marketing -of the produce. It was recognised thai; other channels of useful work were open to the board in the matter of arranging shipping and insurance, and in the establishment of new markets. These avenues gave wide -scope £or its activities. Prior to the formation of the board the National Dairy Association had functioned successfully in connection with shipping arrangements and the expeditious discharge of documents and the Joll Company contribution to the.incidental expense had been about £34 a year only. The association, however, did not have the power of binding companies to an agreement, but under the Dairy Control Act the board could make contracts With the merchants for the disposal of ,the produce and could bind the industry to thoae contracts. In the opinion of the speaker, it was doubtful whether any big improvement in shipping had been realised under the working of the board. As the board could control the whole of the Dominion output, it was in the position to make the best possible shipping contracts, but the speaker could not agree with the chairman of the board that it had saved £120,000 in the first two years and was saving something like £140,000 this year. "A VERY GOOD CONTRACT." The board had undoubtedly made a very good contract regarding insurance, aa it was in a much better position than the individual companies to demand satisfactory terms, but the first contract the board had made was only on practically the same basis as the Joll Company had arranged just prior to the establishment of tho board. Mr. Murdoch thought that the demand on the markets of Great. Britain should be amply sufficient to absorb the whole of the Dominion dairy produce and in the direction of creating a demand among consumers the board could perform a highly important work by judicious advertising. The value of such propaganda was clearly evidenced by the results obtained in other commercial ventures.' This avenue and others the speaker had mentioned gave a wide scope of beneficial activities to the board, but unfortunately it had taken up the attitude of endeavouring to handle the actual marketing and stating to the merchants the prices which the produce should realise. WANT OP HARMONY. Giving further opinions as to the manner in which the board had failed to operate successfully, Mr. Murdoch instanced the lack of unanimity among its members. Experience had shown that even after coming to a decision harmony was often lacking when the endeavour was made to give effect to measures decided upon. This was shown in striking manner at the present juncture when Mr. Goodfellow was proposing to disperse with the pool system and Mr. Bryant was suggesting a reversion to price-fixing, while in a recent interview given to the Press, Mr. Goodfellow had spoken of "group" marketing and seemed to be doing his best to knock the board out altogether. Mr. Murdoch urged that marketing of the produce should never have been attempted by the board, but as a possibility existed of an endeavour to continue such a policy, the directors desired an expression of opinion from the company suppliers a s to the attitude £o be adopted. ALWAYS OPPOSED. Keplying to Mr. J. D. Bashford, the 'chairman said that the directorate had always been opposed to the marketing of the produce by the board. While he did not move it personally, ;he suggested that consideration be given to a motion couched in the following terms:— That this meeting of shareholders of the Joll Co-op. Dairy Company, Ltd., wish to revert to pre-control conditions as far as the marketing of their produce is concerned, and is of opinion that the functions of the New Zealand Dairy Produco Control Board should be restricted to the arrangements of freights, insurance, and other matters incidental to the general care of New Zealand export dairy produce; and, further, that the Government be asked to amend the Dairy Produce Control Act by repealing tho clause relating to the compulsory marketing of export dairy produce, thus leaving to dairy companies and individuals the free right to sell or consign their produce as obtained before the enforcement of absolute control. "A BIG MISTAKE." Answering questions, ' the chairman »aid the board had been in existence for two and a half years, though it was only in the last season that it had taken action with regard to marketing. It seemed a big mistake of the board to take that step when it was dependent upon the merchants for finance. Had the board waited for say three or four years before indicating to the merchants the manner in which they should conduct their business, 'the action regarding marketing would probably not have been taken. Mr. J. C. Wood was emphatic in the opinion that a group of men such as those constituting the board should »ot be given full control of produce .valued at approximately £20,000,000. The motion suggested by the chairman was moved by Mr. E. Green and Seconded by Mr. W. E. Scott. Mr. J. F. Kiley promptly stated that the motion did not go far enough, and proposed the amendment quoted at the head of this report. Mr. E. J. Betts seconded. On being put to the meeting the amendment was carried as indicated, and was adopted as the substantive motion.