MUNICIPAL MILK.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 8 September 1923, Page 7

MUNICIPAL MILK.

WELLINGTON AND TEE FARMERS,

HARD BARGAIN FOR CONSUMERS,

(By Telegraph.—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 7. Wellington's municipal m iik monopoly is reaching a serious financial position. As a result of the recent negotiations with supplying farmers, which will cause the consumers to pay £16,000 extra per annum, the position is s& acute that the Mayor talks of reverting to the system of open «om|>etition, when it is hoped that the municipal methods with pasteurised bottled milk will score against private vendors. The arbitration award covering the whotesale price of milk for the coming year was considered by the City Council, which also decided the question of what charge is to be made to consumers during the coming summer period. Ife was finally decided that the charge be at the rate of 7d per quart retail from October 1 to March 31, tne price of cream to remain as at present. The charge made last summer was s£d per quart, so that the increase for the coming summer is considerable, lid per quart. The summer price for cream last year was Is 6d per pint, and this summer it will remain at the 1923 winter price. 2s 2d per pint an increase of 8d per pint on last Bunn;jer'» price. . —

Commenting upon the new price scale made necessary by the increased prices to be paid to suppliers, tho Mayor (Mr. R. A. Wright) states: "At the present-time the Oity Council, as everybody knows, has practically a monopoly of the milk suoply to the consumers, the exceptions* being the nearby farmers, who are free to retail their milk in the city, and the result of that practical monopoly is to exclude the general body of suppliers from selling their milk in the city. The monopoly has its advantages in many ways and makes for the cheapening of the cost of distribution; but if, of course, the price to be paid' by the council to suppliers is to be increased abnormally, the question arises whether we are not paying too much for the monopoly. The council will have to consider seriously the question of abandoning the monopoly and buying wherever it chooses, in the cheapest market. This would' result in the renewal of competition, because the suppliers who were unable to sell their milk to the City Council, as at present, would naturally want to sell in the town. The effect of this would be that the. City Council would undoubtedly lose some of its clients, but I am under the opinion that by selling the article under" the bottle system we would compete successfully against competition. I regret to say this, but? I can see no other alternative. We are now called upon to pay £15,000 more for our milk for this year than we did for last year's sup-dies. W© were already paying considerably in excess of what was being paid to suppliers of other centres. If, however, the council gives up its monopoly and allows everyone to trade it will relieve us from 0. very great deal of trouble and anxiety, a,nd even though the volume of our business would probably be reduced somewhat, J believe that in the end it would be for the best.'» .'

Commenting on this situation and the Mayor's suggested solution, tfie Wellington Post declares that the farmers appear to have regarded the council as a wealthy commercial monopolist, and they have overlooked the fact that the council acts for thousands of "consumers, many 0f,% them poor.,|«|:3Pipse consumers also control the councuHsnd while they have hitherto accepted the increased prices without murmuring they are unlikely to continue to -do so. If they believe that the farmers are taking advantage of tKfc, council control .to squeeze them a# <&dijryH}rn t they will be "much inclined to! throw overboard the whole milk scheme. It would be a calamity if this were to happen, and farmers as well as consumers would suffer. Farmers should remember this and consider whether they are demanding too much and driy., ing too hard a bargain with the patient consuming public.