The Evening Star FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1929. DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

Evening Star, Issue 20255, 16 August 1929, Page 8

The Evening Star FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1929. DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

The Dairy Export Control Board goes from had to worse. Its latest exploit is surely calculated to make factory suppliers and their organisations rub their eyes and ask themselves why they should any longer tolerate the cavalier treatment accorded them by those who are supposed to be their representatives. Recently the board, with a complacency which lias yet to be explained, adopted what it is pleased to term a model form of contract for the disposal of season’s or monthly outputs of butter and cheese by the factories. Whatever may have taken place between the board and the marketing section of the industry it is undeniable that the producing side of the industry was not consulted. In fact, the whole of the South Islandsuppliers, factory directors, and the exporters also—appears to have been totally ignored in the . matter. Mr Wight, secretary of the South Island Dairy Association, took’ prompt measures to have this rectified. Mr Brash, secretary of the Control Board, did his best to block Mr Wight and keep the South Island in the dark. The request for copies of the “ model” contract was met with a refusal, on the grounds that the contract forms were the property of the Exporters’ Association, and the Control Board had no authority to supply them. Whether this impudent refusal was made with the Control Board’s cognisance anct approval or nob we do not know. If it was, the sooner the Control Board is eliminated the better, because depriving the producers of any right to know the terms on which it is proposed they shall sell their commodity is the antithesis of acting in the best interests of the producer, which is . the board's stereotyped reply to any criticism of its erratic doings and its perennial plea for its very existence. If Air Brash, in replying to Air Wight, acted on his own initiative without consulting his board, then it is the board’s duty to reorganise its own domestic affairs. In the interests of self-preservation it must do so; for, though there have been many occasions on which the board has flouted the producer, we fail to recollect the equal of this episode in the matter of contemptuous arrogance.

However, Mr Wight lost no time in procuring elsewhere copies of the “model” contract, analysing the probable effect of its proposals, and submitting them to representatives of the industry in Otago. His very, lucid report fairly /riddles what the Control Hoard has approved. He writes: “The contracts are in my opinion a deliberate attempt to. lower the market value of our butter and cheese.” The reasons he adduced in support of a charge than which there could be none graver appear to us incontrovertible; Those to whom he submitted his report were unanimous in approval of this action of the secretary of the South Island Dairy Association. Moreover, these included not only representatives of the Otago dairy producers, but at least one representative of the Otago exporters. Tnat gentleman stated that the South Island exporters, as well as producers, had been kept in ignorance ' of wiiat the Control Board had done, and admitted

that certain of the clauses in the “ rp r del” contracts were not in the interests of the South Island factories. The resolution passed is tantamount to a declaration of want of confidence in the Control Board. But that will not matter, if tho brief but vivid history of that body constitutes any guide to its behaviour in the immediate future. It really seems that nothing short of the repeal of the legislation which authorised the creation of the hoard can free this most important industry of its shackles. It may be that it would be preferable that the industry should be guided in a way like that in which the Meat Board handles another great exporting industry rather than that matters should revert to the system, prevailing prior to the establishment of the Dairy Control Board. Bub that seems impossible of attainment. Tho conception and birth of this hoard were inauspicious. “'They ■ invaded literature like a band of Sioux,” wrote an essayist concerning a certain school of French realists. Thus it was with the dairying industry. In process of time the dairy producers of New Zealand had developed, solidly and soundly, ' n co-operative system. The factories, were built up on that plan, and in each island there was an association in which the factories were units grouped together for collective action when deemed necessary. If the factories preferred to do their own marketing they did so; if they desired the association to undertake it for them it was done. Certain;gentlemen connected with the industry saw all this tried and proved organisation ready to their .hands, and resolved to capture it—legitimately, of course—by Act of Parliament. There was very strong opposition ,in (as well as out of) Parliament to the passage. of the Act. We need nob recall how it reached the Statute Book on thd strength of a solemn undertaking which fractured the first time any pressure was put on it. The board’s methods have since been those of the parasite—sappirlg the life-blood of its hosts. Tho dairy associations have gradually been deprived of their most fundamental responsibilities and duties. The board has gathered the reins into its own hands, but has proved itself a shockingly poor driver. And, compared with what it replaced, the board is an expensive adjunct to the industry. We rejoice to see that tire South Island Dairy Association is showing itself possessed qf far more vitality than might have been expected. It is now the plain duty of every South Island dairy producer to back up his association loyally, and see this business right through. The studied insult offered to tho association constitutes a challenge. It has been taken up, and the fight has to follow.