The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1927. BREAD AND BUTTER.

Evening Star, Issue 19520, 30 March 1927, Page 6

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1927. BREAD AND BUTTER.

Two conferences on subjects of paramount importance were held simultaneously yesterday in the North and South Islands. At Palmerston North the representatives of the dairying industry discussed butter and cheese among themselves. At Timaru the grain growers discussed wheat and flour with Ministers of the Crown. The root of tho trouble is that the dominion seems unable to produce bread and butter at a profit. In each case the Government Ls involved. As regards dairy produce, tho Government is responsible for the setting up of the Control Board. The Government is entirely responsible for tho bestowal on the board of absolute power over this end of the industry by its insertion of the compulsory clauses. The Government is more responsible for the uncalled-for exercise of that absolute power than has hitherto been understood, for it is now becoming fairly generally known that Ministerial pressure was brought to bear to induce sufficient members of the board (on which there are nominees of tho Government) who were against absolute control to vote in favor of it. All these actions of tho were taken in the teeth of advice from the most experienced business men with whom the Government had voluntarily consulted over tho matter ever since the control movement began. The Government was warned that there could be no control without a monopoly, and that New Zealand butter possessed no monopoly on the Home market. A most humiliating and disturbing fact emerges from this season’s marketing operations, that fact being Britain’s ability to go without trio New Zealand supplies locked’ up in store because of the Control Board’s refusal to meet the market. The Government was warned by those experts whom it consulted that a selling combination such as the board would be countered by a buying combination at Home, and that both goodwill and sales would be jeopardised. When a large section of the dairying industry, impressed by the counsel which the Government rejected, sought to test the matter by a fresh election pf the board, tho Government declined to permit it. All along the board had the approval and co-operation of tho Government until the jointlydevised scheme broke down badly as goon as it was put into operation. Then, indeed, the Prime Minister, in London at the time, saw that, however effective tho board’s control might be in New Zealand, it was non-existent in England. He became alarmed, and cabled to the board out hare to recede from its impossible position. But be found that the product of his creation and culture had become defiant of his direction. He had to confess his own impotence (which must have been a very disagreeable task), and ho has also disclaimed the Government’s responsibility for what has happened—never a difficult thing for a politician to do. But responsibility cannot thus be shelved. The present position is that there has been a partial climb down, and that New Zealand butter is once more moving gradually into consumption. But both tho board and the industry are riven. In London Mr Irons, tho chairman of the board’s representation there, declares that a continuation of fixed prices would spell disaster; in Wellington Mr Grounds, chairman of the board, obstinately defends and clutches his unhappy offspring. Throughout the North Island meetings of those actively concerned in dairy production disclose a great rift of opinion. It is too soon to discern yet which party is in tho majority there. But inquiries made in the South Island seem to show that not only ia tho board mistrusted and reviled, but that there is a very strong animus against the Government for tho part it has played in bringing this important industry to its present plight. And what is that plight? Cases have been cited to us of dairy farmers who state that their milk cheques are £3O per month less this season than last. Dairy factories complain that at this late stage of the season tho Control Board has not yet squared up accounts for their first shipment of the season. Though that factory’s contribution may have been sold long ago, there is delay until all the other factories’ contributions to that shipment have also been sold and an average struck for the pool. Tflb delay indicates on what scjdo storage in London has been resorted to, The contrast with pro-control days will be specially vivid to those factories which disposed of outputs on the f.o.b. system. The board’s slogan is “ orderly markot-

ing ”; but there is no orderly marketing when the vendor, after waiting for

months, cannot even get advice as to what price his product brought, lot alone get the balance of the money that may be due to him. While the dairy producer’s position is that he is unable to get a payable price for what the Control Board has commandeered to sell for him, the wheat grower declines to sell his particular commodity unless he can get a payable price for it. And the wheat grower believes that he will be able to get his price if he can induce the Government to act as ho wishes, and put an embargo on the entry of Australian flour. That was tho pith of the meeting which Canterbury wheat growers had yesterday with Mr Coates and his colleagues. The answer given to the farming community yesterday was much tho same as it has received on every occasion throughout the season. There is a tariff agreement with Australia necessitating six months’ notice before any increase of duty. Cabinet will recommend Parliament to increase the flour duty, and this means Jong delay before it can operate; but the Government will not near of any embargo. In effect, this means continuance of existing conditions. Despite doubts as to their ability to do so, farmers as a rule appear to be strong enough financially to defer realisation of their harvests. Whether they will consider it worth while continuing these tactics after having their case answered as it was yesterday remains to be seen. They Wo been pinning their hopes to Government intervention, and the Government declines to intervene. There are several strong reasons against Government intervention. One of them has already been quoted. Another reason is the consumer’s probable attitude towards a Government attempt to raise the price of wheat in New Zealand when the movement of Australian and other prices is in the opposite direction. A third reason is that wheat-growing, so far as New Zealand is concerned, is exclusively a South Island industry, and the present Administration is emphatically not a South Island Ministry. The North Island resolutely opposes an embargo on flour, maintaining its right to import foodstuffs from outside if it suits and pays better than to draw them from the South Island. On the whole, the situation in which tho Government finds mself in respect of both fread and bitter is not an enviable one, but in many respects the Government has itself to thank for its difficulties and waning inana.