DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.
(Continued from Page 3.)
!the Wellington-West Coast Dairy Asisociaition to attend and address the meeting on this subject, but being here ttie must express his view's. It seemed to him that if the present motion .went through there was no further question before the meeting. The chairman agreed with the consent of the seconder to alter his motion to read : “That the meeting approved of the principle of control.” This was put and carried unanimously. At the invitation of the chairman, Mr Pacey addressed the meeting from the platform in opposition to the Bill, which he contended was only bringing back the system of control found so galling during the., war and which everybody was glad to see the last of. Further he contended that the cost of administration of what even its supporters could not but admit was a clumsy machine for marketing, would be so heavy as to eat up any profits which might be made under the scheme. One of the big argments put up by supporters of the Bill was that it would do for. butter what the Meat Control Bill had done for meat, but it was an open question if the Meat Control Bill had done anything for meat. Mutton and Jamb had certainly jjone up, but that' was merely as the re&ult of a general shortage. If it was the work of the Meat Board, why had they not done the samei for beef? To his mind the main trouble was the unsatisfactory shipping. There were ten ports of loading in New Zealand and a consequent waste of time resulting in irregular supplies. Remedy this, if (possible, but he strongly advised the meeting not to rashly adopt a system of control which only absolute necessity could justify, and which nothing in the present situation warranted. He moved a motion, which he explained had been adopted as a resolution at a meeting of a dairy company in Auckland twelve months previously, to the effect “That the Government be urged to appoint an experienced and representative commission to visit Britain, Canada, Denmark and elsewhere to thoroughly investigate the conditions of transportation and marketing of dairy produce, such commission to report to the Government what alterations should be made in the pre&ent system of marketing. That such commission should "include two persons intimately associated with the dairying industry one of whom favours the Control Bill, and one who opposes such Bill, also an independent chairman who has had large experience in New Zealand financial and commercial circles. Pending report and recommendations of such commission, Parliament be asked to defer legislation.” When this had been done, he contended there would be something definite to go on, but to saddle themselves with ill-considered legislation, which before long they might wish themselves well rid of was not a wise policy. Mr Brown had mentioned the opposition which the Bill had received from farmers, and Wad spoken of this as the weakness in the farmers’ ranks, it was rather a strength and showed that farmers had the ability to think for themselves. Let them go into the matter thoroughly, and if they found on investigation that the Bill wasi worthy of support it would be time enough to go on with it. Mr J. D, Brown briefly spoke in opposition to this motion. Mr E. McDonald seconded the motion, ian adjournment being then made for lunch. On the resumption of the meeting after considerable discussion, Mr Hartham (Pa/raparaumu) moved an amendment, which Mr R. A. Roiston (Levin) seconded, that the meeting go further than its original resolution, and affirm the principle of control as embodied in the Dairy Control Bill. There might be things in the Bill which were not all they .might be, but they would have capable men fit the head of affairs when the organising ol the scheme was being effected and they could be relied on to right these. Several other speakers supported this view. Mr Pacey entered a strong protest against what would amount if the BUI were carried, to coercion of those concerns which opposed the scheme. Coercion was absolutely unjustifiable. If the principle of the Bill was sound it could be worked out as co-operation had been in New Zealand. Lei it be a voluntary effort on the part of those who supported it, and is successful the others would be only 100 glad to join iib * The chairman said there would have io be a certain amount of confidence in those who were running the Bill. He understood that .the proprietary concerns and merchants had formed an association to fight .any move such as the present. These people must have discovered a great interest in the welfare of the xarmer all of a sudden. His opinion was that it was not iha; they desired 'To save the farmer from himself, but for themselves.
Mr Pacey opposed ivhat lie called a rather unfair remark on Hi part oj the chairman. He understood that an organisation Iliad been formed but it was as the result of the co-operative companies insisting on treating the proprietary organisations as enemies, that this was done. He was acting in a dual capacity himself—as a- representative of a co-operative concern and also as a representative of Nathan and Co. He made no apology for his connection, with a proprietary company, but this association Mr Broadbelt spoke of was merely formed to protect their own interests against the enmity of the co-operative organisations. He considered that these were making a great mistake in their attitude. If they were to try honestly to come to some understanding whereby they could work ,in harmony for the betterment Qf the industry, more would be accomplished. The amendment was put and carried and the amendment becoming the motion Mr Pacey moved an amendment that the meeting expressed approval of the principle of control but opposition to many of the provisions of the Bill. Mr E. J. Beard (Rangiotu) seconded the amendment which was lost. The motion that the meeting affirm the Bill as brought forward was then carried, the meeting concluding with a hearty vote of thanks to the chair. It had commenced at 11 o’clock and continued till 4 p.m.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HC19230613.2.38
Bibliographic details
Horowhenua Chronicle, 13 June 1923, Page 4
Word Count
1,040DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL. Horowhenua Chronicle, 13 June 1923, Page 4
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Horowhenua Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.