WHERE IS THE DAIRY BOARD ?

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 2312, 3 December 1925, Page 9

WHERE IS THE DAIRY BOARD ?

Serious State of Congestion Under the above caption the Dairy Produce Board is being severely criticised just now for its apparent inaction in allowing Over 14,000 tons of New Zealand butter to arrive on the London market during January. There Is no doubt that .assisted by Australia, the Southern Hemisphere will once more ruin the London butter market with disastrous results to the producers. Could the Board have prevented such a disaster? The various Press messages regarding the serious congestion of dairy produce and the heavy January arrivals in London are, of course, nothing new. The congestion was not only expected but was almost inevitable, and is the unmistakable result of the recent shipping hold-up. To indiscriminately blame the Dairy Produce Board for these happenings is therefore hardly fair, although it may bo questioned whether the Board made the fullest use of its powers and authority. In the following article, “Rusticus" will endeavour to give a perfectly unbiassed exposition of the facts loading up to the present unenviable position. Although the shipping strike may perhaps not be blamable for the whole' it was no doubt the source, of the trouble. The dislocation of shipping, the accumulation of produce and the piling up of steamers liv New Zealand ports were the primary' results. At the conclusion of the strike there existed a natural desire to get rid of these accumulations accentuated by the endeavours made by shipipng companies , to obtain cargoes for the earliest dispatch of their vessels. Both these factors, no doubt, account for the shipping of 10,393 tons of butter during November. That this quantity was too -large is beyond doubt, nor can there bo any. question as to the ultimate result. The question is: Could the. Dairy Board have improved on this unsatisfactory position V Did it have the power to do so ? Board Possesses Power To Regulate. The arrival of butter and che.ese on the London market during November and December were far be-, low what they should have been. This was the direct result of the strike and was entirely beyond the Board's control. The shipping of 10, 393 tons of butter from New Zealand in November and the arrival of 14,208 tons in January are excessive. Would control have been possible and was regulation practical and advisable ? There is no question that the Board has the power to regulate shipping and any suggestion or inference to the contrary should be regarded as a misrepresentation of facts. The writer was sorry to see such an inference in Mr. Grounds' monthly review in the official section of th'e “Exporter.” “ in marketing matters,” writes the chairman, "they, (tho Board) realise their Impotence under existing circumstances WITHOUT HAYING ACTUAL CONTROL.” It is to bo regretted that Mr. Grounds should endeavour to make capital for his pool-policy, even out of the unfortunate circumstances leading up to the .present unsatisfactory position, for the existence of which he is being blamed in many quarters. It must be noted that Mr! Grounds refers to “marketing matters” (not shipping matters) but the ■inference is there nevertheless. If Grounds suggsts that the "regulating of marketing” would have been bener flclal, why did he not “regulate, the shipping,”' which would have been considerably simpler and far more effective ? The Board had full powers to do so and did not use them, why then lament the absence of authority to manipulate the marketing, with all its inherent dangers? Was Regulation Advisable ? The next point Is, whotner It wa.s practical or even advisable to regulate the shipping, or as Mr. Grounds suggests,, to regulate the marketing. The fact remains that a serious accumulation of butter (and the same applies to cheese) had taken place. This accumulation was so great that nearly 6,000 tons of butter remained In New Zealand grading stores ,etc.. on December 1, after shipping over 10,000 tons in November. In addition to this, we will be producing approximately 9,000 tons of butter during December, followed by 8,000 tons in: January and (what may be regarded as a normal month’s shipment) 6,500 tons in February. It will be seen therefore that, not only did we have a largo quantity of butter on hand on December 1, but we are producing for three months ahead, quantities in excess of what the London market can comfortably absorb. The result of regulating—or what it meant—reducing shipping, would have been, that butter overshipped in November (or an ever-increasing quantity each month) would ha,vc to be held over for shipment until March. Looking At Both Sides, The writer is Inclined to question tho advisability of such a policy. He has pointed out on a number of occasions that the evils of the strike have not become apparent as yet to the average producer, but that they were real, nevertheless, and unfortunately we will have to pay the price. The present position bristles with difficulties and it is only fair to all concerned to look at both sides of the picture. Although the Board possesses the power to regulate shipping, it does not necessarily follow, that regulation of ship-) ping after a prolonged hold-up is beneficial or will undo the harm done. No matter how much the present congestion Is to bo regretted and how much we should strive to avoid gluts and famines On the London market, it Is only fair and just that allowance be made for circumstances beyond the control of producers In New Zealand.