DAIRY CONTROL

Evening Star, Issue 19319, 4 August 1926, Page 2

DAIRY CONTROL

ANTIDOTE TO TRUSTS JUSTIFICATION BY A MISTER ISSUE BEFORE PARLIAMENT. [From Oor Parliamentary Reporter] WELLINGTON, August 3. “ The dairy farmer in Now Zealand has never sold his own produce” was the statement with which Mr Hawkeu (Minister of Agriculture) opened his' references to the compulsory control of marketing when he was moving the second reading of the Dairy Export Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. Mr Hawkon proceeded to demonstrate his point. The producers numbered 55,000, and- they elected 2,600 directors, to do their business. They always recognised that each supplier could not market his bit,of butter, just as they recognised the ’ necessity for combination in manufacture. In the Control Bill" they had provided that the numbers should be still further reduced, and it was left to the Control Board, selected from representatives of the producers, to do their marketing. He knew there was .a small minority against it, but every new method was opposed by people who were against change, or wore nervous or fearful; while there were others who opposed it because they did not wish to see the farmers united. “There are those who, under this new system, will not be wanted. When you reorganise a business you do'it with the object of finding out what you can do without, and this reorganisation of the daily industry has been thought out on'these lines. The dairyman has no grouch or ill-feeling, but ho says that some people are not wanted. By cooperation to the marketing point he will do the work, himself. Ho docs not propose to do away with the Tooley street merchant, the distributor at the other end, but up to a point ho is entitled to do the business himself, thereby saving expense.” A COUNTER TO TRUSTS. There must bo a counter to the modern trust and combine, and he believed that the co-operative effort could be made effective in a way that would be beneficial to all. The reduction in freights announced that day was evidence of what could be done by the united producers The dairy insurance policy was then cheapest in tho world. Ho believed the greatest saving would bo achieved at the marketing end by eliminating speculators. A good example of what could bo done was evidenced by regulation of shipments having regard to what the market could absorb. Mr Voitch (Wanganui); Without compulsion ? The Minister declared that the result had been the greatest run of level prices ever experienced. A predicted slump had not occurred. The board would have more knowledge of conditions, and would have its representatives in London. He believed that they would work well with Tooley street. There had been no talk while ho’ was on the Dairy Board of holding up butter for certain prices. It was possible to agree with one’s agent as to what both thought was a reasonable market price for the time being. He believed when tho board took control that it would bo found that all tho talk aboutwhat it would or would not do was beside the mark. It would conduct its ’business with Tooley street on fair and square linos. “There is no thought of forming a ring to take it out of the consumer,” concluded the Minister, “ and there is plenty of competition to fear.” _Mr Holland (Leader of the Opposition) stated that his party gave a general support to control. He had noticed that most of tho opposition came from proprietary companies. Tho working farmer favored compulsory control. Dairy control was only a first step towards tho elimination of trusts and combines. He warned the producers, however, that they must keep their eyes on Tooley street, or it would get ahead of them.

Mr Young (Minister of Health) dedairy control as pioneering. Tho critics of control had directed most of their attention to Parliament and the Government; but the producers themselves were responsible. “ Syndicalism, nothing more or less!” declared Mr Veitch, who likened compulsion in the dairy industry to passing legislation making one big union for New Zealand. After they had nationalised tho land by taking control of all its products, the next step would ho for the British Government to purchase everything. No doubt it would stabilise prices, hut at what level? Mr Veitch went on to deny that opposition to control came wholly from tho proprietary companies. Ho predicted a long period of dissension in the dairy industry as a result of the measure. BOLSHEVISM IN NEW ZEALAND. Mr Nash (Palmerston North) contended that nothing had happened to justify the operation of compulsion, though the Minister of Agriculture had promised, when tho Bill was passed, that it would only bo introduced in exceptional circumstances. Tho Dairy Board had taken £140,000 out of dairy farmers at a time when they could least afford it. Taranaki, which first first supported control, was now strongly against it. He thought there was no question that tho Dairy Board would fix prices, otherwise they could not control sales. Then trouble would begin. Tho margarine sales in England had increased since 1919 by 77,000 tons, while tho butter sales rose by only 34,000 tons. Tho Dairy Board would got a lesson for its high-handed attitude. They had ’declared that they would take tho produce, but a number of factories would tight them and spend money, too. In addition to his amendment ho would move in committee that one producer one vote be applied. Finally, Mr Nash declared, amid Ministerial laughter, that the Bill was the nearest approach to Bolshevism that he had seen in Now Zealand. Ho felt his position. Keenly on tho Government side of tho House.

[Pek Uniter Press Association.] Mr H. G. R. Mason (Eden) objected, to the svs bom of voting adopted in the Bill, which was the worst possible that could have been chosen. With tho correction of this weakness he thought they might look for beneficial results from the passing of tho measure. _ Sir Joseph Ward ridiculed the idea mentioned by Mr Holland that tho British Government -should take over dominion produce and dispose of it, because to protect those sources of supply they would, have to take over all. other sources of supply. Ho objected to compulsory control, because every man liad a right to dispose of the product of his own labor. The Labor Party was supporting control because it was in keeping with its policy of nationalising, tho means of production, distribution,. and exchange. Mr Holland was more far-seeing than the members of the Government, because he could see the end, of his policy, and members of the Reform Party could not. Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bayp considered that before the Bill became law the present members of the board, should retire, and a fresh .election should he hold. In that event he was confident tho majority would turn down compulsion. Under compulsion there would be no incentive to maintain tho quality of New Zealand butter. All that would matter would be quantity, and that which so fax had been the mainstay of our dairy industry would disappear. Control was Socialistic, Communistic, Bolshevik, or something of that sort, and he feared for the consequences of our going on as we appeared to b.e doing. /Mr G. W. Forbes said ho had voted, for control originally, Ixicause they, were told it was not intended to use it unless it became absolutely necessary. Control should bo supported by, a very strong case, and ho was bound to admit that no such case had been made out., Ho strongly favored the postponement of control, although, with a strong majority behind the Government, there was little hope-of success in that direction.

Tho Hon.' Mr Nosworthy said the farmers had just as much right to. organise an their own interests as. another section of the business community, and that was all they were, doing under tho Bill. He advised farmers to hang on to compulsory control as one way of fighting those interests which were fighting them. Mr M. J. Savage spoke strongly in. favor of control. He said tliat if the farmers found it did not work, it would not bo difficult to revoke it.

Air J. R. Hamilton (Avvarua) gave an instance of speculator’s operations in. tho produce markets,'which were not in. the interests of the dairy farmers. Control would eliminate that undesirable dement from the dairy business, Messrs J. C. Rollcston (Waitomo), 11. L. Tapley, and Sir John Luke favored tho postponement of compulsion.

After the Telegraph Office closed tho debate on the Dairy Produce Export Control Amendment Bill was continued by Mr Dickson (Chalmers), who, although ho had been asked by a section of his constituents to support control, would not do so because he did not believe in it.

The Hon. Mr Buddo said he had previously voted for control under the impression that it would not be exoi-j cised except in cases of emergency. As no emergency existed and control was to be exercised, he would reverse his vote and support an amendment for the postponement of control. Mr Waito (Clutha) favored control because in this case it was not State control but producer control. In view of possible competition it was necessary that farmers should organise, but the opponents of the Bill would deny them that right. Seventy-five per cent, of the dairy farmers favored control, and tho last conference decided in favor of tho voting system contained in the Bill. Therefore, if the House wished to support farmers, members would support the Bill as it stands.

Mr Bellringer opposed control because it was contrary to the true spirit of co-opcration, which ho considered essential to the prosperity of the dairy industry. The dairy farmers in his district might ho erroneous in their ideas, but ho thought they were right in opposing compulsory control. For tliat reason lie would vote to kill the Bill or in any other way to delay its operation.

Tho Minister, in reply, said most of the arguments used by the opponents of the compulsory clauses wore such as they wore familiar with. That opposition meant that tho House, after having given farmers power to control their own industry, was now being asked to take that power away, which was not logical. The second reading was agreed to on the voices, and the. House rose at 2,45 a.m. till 2.30 p.m.

REPORTED TROUBLE AT HOME

[From Oub Parliamentary. Reporter]

WELLINGTON, August 3. A suggestion was contained in ji question by Mr Yoitch (Wanganui) to tbe Minister of Agriculture in the House of Representatives to-day that there has been trouble in connection with the Dairy Board’s officers in England. Mr Veitch wished iho Minister to inform Parliament if a majority ot the Dairy Board members were in favor of postponing the compulsory marketing scheme, and if the board’s London manager had asked to bo al lowed to resign unless ho was appointed to the London Board.

Mr Hawkcn replied that he had no knowledge of any such difference ol opinion on tho board, nor did he know anything regarding tho board’s London manager. Mr Veitch suggested in a question to tljo P.rimo Minister that in view ot early discussion on tho Control BilJ the House should be informed regarding the views of the Imperial Government on compulsory marketing, if it had expressed any views, and if ho wopld also inform tho House regarding the views of tho High Commissioner, the Government representative on the London Board, and a member of the Rural Banking Commission regarding the desirability of postponing the operations of compulsion.

Mr Coates replied that ho would be glad to give Parliament any information when he could obtain it, but the question had only como to his notice a few minutes before it was asked.

EISOUSSES) BY FARMERS THE HOME KARKFT NEW ZEALAND'S RIVALS. [rEB United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, August 3. "Control is one. thing, dictation is another," said Mr W. J. Poison, president of the Not Zealand Farmers Union, when enlarging on his presidential address to the conference today. They had control in the Meat Board, which was a very good system, of control that was producing good resuite, and they could have efficient control in the Dairy Control Board. The commission won't to a great deal ofc •trouble to get information to assist the. farmers of New Zealand. Thoy went, abont independently, and travelled thousands of miles visiting merchants, grocers, and people who were handling New Zealand butter, and formed individual opinions. On getting to London thoy found that they had arrived at an identical opinion. He was anxious to see control a success, for he had as much at as anyone. Every grocer or merchant who handled Now Zealand butter was in a state of anxiety as to what wasgoing to happen, for they had the impression that New Zealand was going to is prices, saying: " That's the priceyou must pay for our butter, or you (lou't get it." The members of the commission did their utmost to reruovo •iikaA impression, assuring people that was not the case. it was susoected that New Zealand was going to dictate to them. It was what the grocers and merchants were going to do that would affect the situation. Thoy knew the congestion there was in the butter market at the present time, and competitors were coming in with increasing quantities of butter every year. The Argentine, Australia, Finland, Siberia, and other countries were sending in butter better than in the past, and New Zealand butter was only a small proportion of the- amount imported. " If a merchant fears he is going to bo dictated to by ourselves," continued Mr Polison, "ho is going to look for fresh sources of supply, and that is precisely what they are doing. My views will bo borne out by independent investigators. Knowing all this, they have turned us down and bought some other butter, and that is largely responsible for tho fillip Australian, butter got while I was at Home." At this stago several delegates questioned tho wisdom'of dealing with dairy control at that moment, as there were remits on the order paper dealing with the subject. Mr H. M. Rufihworth, in proposing a vote of thanks to tho chairman, also moved a motion to the effect that tho conference strongly supported tho dction of the Dairy Control Board. Another delegate urged that they should be careful not to give- away any more information which would provide ammunition with which to light the Dairy Control Board. The motion of thanks having been carried, it was decided to proceed with. two remits dealing with dairy control, in view of tho fact that the question' was to be considered, in the Houoo that evening. The lirst was tho following Auckland remit:—".That this conference approves of tho Dairy Control Board having full control of ail dairy products, for export." Tho other remit was: "That this conference. supports the election of Dairy Produce Control Board on a> single scat waxd system, with the voU ing on an export tonnage bass by dairy company directors." Both were sharply and shortly discussed, and Mr It. .11. Foiast, Auckland, said that it was not (surprising that thero was a good deal of hostility to tho action of the Dairy Control Board owing to a cable which was wont to London by the ' New Zealand Times.'

The remits were carried, and were forwarded to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture immediately alter lunch.