DAIRY EXPORT BOARD

Hawera Star, Volume L, 26 June 1930, Page 5

DAIRY EXPORT BOARD

WORK AND FUTURE DEBATED ABOLITION SUGGESTED PROPOSAL HEAVILY DEFEATED. By Telegraph—Special t.-. “The Star.’ } HAMILTON, June 26. The Dairy Produce Export Botiru, its work and its future, were subjects of debate at yesterday’s sitting ot tne N.D.A. conference. . ■ - T The, subject was opened) by Mr d. Hine (acting-chair man of the boaro), who gave a brief address on its activities and answered several questions. Subsequently a remit to the effect that the functions of t ' ie . T rt^ al A should bo taken over by the N.D.A. was moved and) heavily defeated. Mr Hine stated that the latest contract negotiated by the chairman or the board while in London had effected a saving of 2-J- per cent, in freights, totalling a saving of £35,000 per annum to the industry. (Applause.) The shipping companies had) also been tied down to two boats per month sailing from Auckland. The board had made a new insurance contract for three years, and this was. he contended, the most comprehensive insurance contract in the world. A condition of the contract was that the board s supervision should continue; this represented) a saving of £35,000 to the industry. The board had had' storage charges in London reduced by £25,000, and the board) claimed' that it had effected a total saving of £427,596. Some of this might'have come about without the board, but not the whole of it, or any big portion of it. FUNCTIONS OF BOARD.

Advertising was anotlieu of the board’s activities, and the statement of returned Australian travellers that New Zealand) produce was seen everywhere at Home was a tribute; to the practical worth of that work. The question was frequently asked why the board did not undertake marketing for those who; wanted it. However, was the board acting as agents for any particular companies ? Confidence m the board) would be shaken further, and it was not desirable to, revive the antagonism existing under the full control. The board should continue to avoid having anything to do with marketing (applause). If they believed) that there was anything in the nature of a panacea to lift prices, they were deluding themselves, and if they attempted to tamper with marketing, tl\pir customers would turn to other sources. They must not overlook the fact that they were not the largest dairy production nation in the world; in butter they were ninth and) in cheese they were seventh.

In reply to a question, Mr Hine said that the "cost of administration of the board had been reduced by £16,000 since the abolition of absolute control. Air Bayliss (Oaonui): Do you not think the board would not function just as well with fewer members? —I don’t isee how you can reduce the personnel. He believed that the number of Government, proprietary and producers’ representatives, was justified, and he did not see what could be gained by a reduction. The producers representatives hacl very wide wards to cover.

A delegate: Would that insurance contract he affected if the board were abolished? Mr Hine: I don’t think there is any chance of the board going out. The delegate: That is not answering my question. Mr Hine: I admit that. He added that lie could not see how: the contract could remain valid if the hoard, as a party to it, disappeared.

SHIPPING SUBSIDY. A delegate: Is the board considering concentrating shipping on the four main ports ?—No, we are not. To another questioner Mr Hine said that the board could not see its way to cut out the subsidy for coastal freights, because the shipping companies had stated that they would make no reduction to the hoard if that were done. The companies said it was cheaper for them to use coastal pingA delegate: You are making a present of £30,000 a year to the _ Patea factories bv continuing the subsidy. : Mr Hine: No; the board has no option in the matter. Mr Bayliss asked if it would not be better to send the produce to other jwirts in addition to London. Mr Hine said it was no fault .of the board that prduce went to London mostly ; it was the fault of ■ tlie port and shipping authorities.

ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE Asked if lie thought that £15,000 expenditure for advertising some £16,000,000 wo'rlth 'of produce was sufficient, Mr Hino said that stare anembers of the board would! favour £20,000 expenditure, while others favoured the present sum. 'There was a difference of opinion. ■ ■ _ Mr A. B. Muggcridgo (Alton) asked if reports received by the board relating to quality Were handed on. Mr Hine: Yds; where they apply to individual factories. A delegate: What does the paper, the “Exporter,” cost the board? (Mr Hine: The cost is £3350. ■•Mr Sinclair (To Awaniutu): Does the bohrd approve of the use of the “Exporter” for advertising the policy of a certain marketing association?' Mr Iline said that the “Exporter” was the official organ of the hoard insofar as the publication of the report was concerned, bu't the board had no control over st.s policy under its contract.

ABOLITION SUGGESTED The following remit was then moved on behalf of the Raetihi Company: “That the work now carried out by the New Zealand) Dairy Produce Board etalVl be equally well done by the National Dairy Association of New Zealand, Ltd., and that this-conference seriously consider the abolition of the Now Zealand Dairy Produce Board.” Mr Seifert said that it had 1 not been explained how the N.D.A. was going to do the work cheaper It'han the hoard. A delegate asked if it had been ascertained whether the Government could or would hand over statutory powers to a limited lability company. Another speaker said .that it seemed to halve been forgotten by the mover of the remit that the N.D.A. did not- represent the whole of the country, as did tlie board. •The remit was- then put to the conference and defeated by an overwhelming majority, only a few voices being raised for the affirmative.