The Hawera Star. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1926. TWO BOARDS, OR ONE?

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 3 December 1926, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1926. TWO BOARDS, OR ONE?

Delivered every evening by 5 o'clock in Hawers. Maiiniu, Normanby. Okaiiiwa, £ltbam, Man gatoki. Kapoiiga, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Waverley Mokoia, Whakainara. Obangai, Mere mere, Fraser Road and Arnrata

His honest fixing of the industrial unrest at Home as largely responsible for the fall in the value of dairy produce, and his tribute to the members of the Dairy Produce (Control) Board, as being without doubt animated by the highest motives, commend to the favourable consideration of farmers Sir George Elliott’s remarks on produce control offered at the half-yearly meeting of shareholders in the Bank of New* Zealand this morning. The public has grown tired of the loud-mouthed assertions of “anti-controllers” that the policy of the board is to blame for the slump (which came before that body assumed control of the output) and that the members of the board are so many knaves. Sir George Elliott is not a supporter of “control”; but his insistence on the harm wrought bv that w*ord is proof of his belief that it is an incorrect term to apply to the regulated marketing which is the board’s object. However, the principal point of the bank chairman’s reference to this topic is contained in his suggestion that the Meat and Dairy Boards should amalgamate, and then reduce the joint personnel to, say, five. The main reason advanced in support of this is that the chief problems of the two boards are identical. Problems of economical loading, freight and refrigeration costs, insurance, cool storage at the marketing end and regulated supply, are common to all the industries producing perishable goods for export, and any sound proposal to amalgamate the Meat and Dairy Boards should take in also the Fruit Board and the Honey Board. As a matter of fact, the several producers organisations • work now* in harmony, and sometimes in co-operation, as witness the all-round freight reductions secured this spring and announced simultnneously. It may be that in closer co-operation, rather than in amalgamation, the interests of the several sections of producers could be best served, for, however alike their shipping and storage may be, a carcase of lamb is not a crate of cheese; and men well versed in the meat trade may know next to nothing about the production and marketing- of butter. Farmers will have to be on their guard against undue growth of costly Loudon agencies, and Sir George Elliott’s suggestion may serve as a valuable warning in this direction; but the experience of commerce is that every man knows known business best, and producers are likely to remember this when thy are urged to merge their varying enterprises in one central body. At the same time, coming from a man so highly placed in business and financial circles, and one who, moreover, is generous in his attitude towards producers’ organisations, the proposal is worthy of close attention b\* those concerned.