THE DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 2762, 2 October 1923, Page 7

THE DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

REPLY TO MR BRASH. Sir, —May I impose upon your space once more and reply to Mr Brash, tho secretary of the National Dairy Association!, whilst he is still hot upon the scent in his heresy hunt and bogeysmashing furore. I shall commence by pointing out to Mr Brash that I am not trying to make a fool of anybody; that I personally am the fool in /this controversy,- and I certainly shall not have even the secretary of tho National Dairy Association donning the cap and bolls in an attempt to hurl me from my throne.

Mr Brash, in his enthusiasm to annihilate the heretic has completely missed quite a neat little assortment of heresies, the existence of which considerably prejudiced his position. In the first place, I asked for facts, and I get opinions. Secondly, I contended .that we farmers had not the experience and necessary business knowledge to successfully direct such tremendous interests (involving sixteen or seven, teen millions of money), grouped as is intended, under one administrative head. I further contended that the facts which we have demanded before we are prepared to commit» ourselves irrevocably, are not available. To quote Mr Grounds, whose answer to criticism of what the Board will do is, "Until reliable information is collected to enable the Board to act, nothing will be done to disturb existing marketing conditions." This is quite a new departure in majority rule I can quite imagine any political aspirant being justly laughed to scorn who employed such methods in his attempts to woo;the confidence of his constituents. A politician without a policy is like an egg without a shell — a thing of very questionable value. Yet, despite all this, the parents of fhis sell-less egg attempt to ridicule our genuine criticism and refer to our objection of giving a blank cheque (i.e., unlimited control of our produ.ee to untried and inexperienced men) as stage property and busted bogies. Ido not for one moment doubt the genuineness and ability of Mr Grounds, but I do assert that if the farmers give their approval to this scheme, them one thing is jusf as likoly to happen as another, and control fall into the hands o.f popular,men at present in farmers' organisations, who have already expressed, I take it, what is their considered opinion, and who have met with a great deal of support', who would commit the industry to wild, fantastic schemes that must lead in one direction only. I have no. desire to controvert' with Mr Brash the success or otherwise of the Meat Producers' Board as, just for the moment, one of the chief reasons for its existence, the "meat trusts," seem to have lost their terrors, if not for the meat producers, at any rate for the Board. However, I will not labour the point, as I for one fail to seo a very close parallel between the two industries, and I certainly think that all the advantages which the meat producers have gained, and can possibly gain under the Board, could have been brought about by the application of ordinary business methods and free negotiation, and I most certainly think that before legis. lation of oven a permissive nature was askod for, all these avenues should have been fully exploited. Anyone who has studied tho present position of the industry must admit tho necessity of re-organisation and consolidation of interests, but at the same time a considerable proportion of those who have given of their best to the consideration of ways and means of bringing this about, are firmly convinced that this Bill, with its compulsory pool, is not the absolute best that the industry can produce for its own betterment. The idea of employing compulsion before any effort has been made to secure co-operation can be profitably left to our Hussian brethren, and Mr Grounds' parallel between traffic regulations and the compulsory clauses of this Bill is too thin to warrant more than a casual comment Traffic regulations are effected for tlie express purpose which this Bill defeats—and that is the protection of life and property. While the Bill proposes to take over the administration of the industry, the property of the minority, who are against the Bill, is to bo commundeer. cd by the majority simply because they imagine they can mako harder trading bargains and so inqrease the prosperity of the community. If this is not a very near relative of Socialism, then I shall gladly surrender to Mr Brash, or anyone else, my cap and bells, throne and all.—l am, 2J t R. A. BENNETT. palmerston North, Oct. 1, 1923.