FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1922. MARKETING DAIRY PRODUCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 20 October 1922, Page 4

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1922. MARKETING DAIRY PRODUCE.

We are sure every producer will read the interesting letter which Mr. J. R. Corrigan has sent us setting out clearly the views of the promoters of the dairy produce control scheme. Mr. Corrigan believes heartily in the scheme, to I which he and other promoters are devoting much time and thought, and we do not think that many farmers can J find much to take exception to in the six objects which are set out in the letter. The objects are clearly such as will benefit the producers, and we cannot see any reason why they should 1 cause conflict with the Tooley Street merchants. Mr. Corrigan is, we believe, correct in stating that up to the time produce reaches the ship's side the New Zealand system of Sco-operation is "second tc none in the world," but, as we Eave said before, it is remarkable that for years past the New Zealand producer has ceased to exercise any practical control or oversight of his produce after it is put on board the ships. Can one imagine the great British manufacturers leaving their exported products to falte? As everyone knows, the British manufacturers have representatives moving . about in the countries which receive. their products and keeping watch over the good§. They do not come into conflict with the merchants and retailers in the Dominions, but they do see that the manufacturers' interests are protected. It seems to us that some similar method is needed in the case of our primary industries, and if the promoters of the scheme have evolved a plan that will meet the position then it should lead to great improvements, and not offend the people at the marketing end. On the other hand there are some producers , who are raising strong opposition to the scheme, seeing in the control of the ] industry dangers which they fear will : lead to trouble. It is the farmers' | : produce, and they are entitled to < receive the best possible returns from, ] their labours. The majority have , expressed dissatisfaction with the old , methods from time to time, and there. i is every reason why they should make ( ] efforts to effect improvements. Aj 1 great deal of time and money has been ' { spent upon the manufacture of first-, 1 class butter' and cheese, and the ] industry is of vital importance to the ( Dominion, as recent years have shown. r The industry is also of great import- 1 ance to the United Kingdom, and we believe that the people in the Old i Country should be enlightened upon i the Dominion's fine products far more j than they have been. The producer cannot expect oEher people to do that . work' for him, and ft is his place to i find the most suitable scheme. It does * not appear to us to be sufficient for g opponents of £he present proposals to -

just kill the Lill upon which evidence , is now being heard^ unless they have i other proposals to anake. So often has . it been said that something must be done that it is not desirable that the scheme how under considei ation should bo killed and then the matter drop back into the "as-you-were" state. The Government- has made it plain that it will assist the producers in whatever scheme they can reach agreement upon, and tha£ appears to be a very sensible attitude. One noticeable thing is that, though the Meat Control Act met with no inconsiderable opposition when it was first proposed, it is working satisfactorily. When the dairy produce proposals, were first mooted prices in London rose and the great margin between Danish and New Zealand , butter prices narrowed rapidly until ; there is now very little between prices obtained for the articles produced in the respective countries. If the Meat Control Board can secure good re&ults, why not a butter control board? It seems to us that the promoters of the butter | control scheme hold the stronger side ■ of the argument, and it is to be hoped I that whatever is to be done will be j done this session. The scheme may need some alterations, but surely producers can reach some practical solution of a problem which has been discussed for years past in its many aspects. Mr. Corrigan* s letter should help producers to a clear understanding of the proposals which the promoters have put forward.