FARMERS’ UNION AND DAIRY BOARD’S POLICY

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3491, 29 October 1926, Page 10

FARMERS’ UNION AND DAIRY BOARD’S POLICY

President Severely Criticises Methods A DIVERSITY OF OPINION The policy adopted by tbe Dairy Control Board prior to the enforcement of control wa.s tbe subject of critical remarks made by the president of the Now Zealand Farmers’ Union at a meeting of the Dominion executive of that organisation yesterday. After discussion tire committee recorded its appreciation of the work of the board. WELLINGTON, Thursday. In discussing the general position of the New Zealand dairy industiy. Mr 0. C. Munro said he thought control was doing very well. It was only meeting with the opposition that, its supporters knew i( would have to face. He was convinced that dairy control would make good. It would work out its own salvation. Mr .1. P. Hull considered the executive should express its appreciation of the work the Dairy Control Board had done already. Ho moved that the executive should record Us appreciation of the work of the board, and recommend the provincial branches lo do all lhe> could lo emphasise the true facts of the board's work. Question of Fixing Prices. The president. Mr W. J. Poison, said they were all very much in favour of control. The farmers’ organisation always had boon. The, Dairy Control Board only had itself to blame for a good deal of the criticism that had occurred. The board declared it had never attempted price-fixing, and that pricefixing had never been a part of Us policy, yet its own circular, published in Ihe Press, had led one to conclude that price-fixing was in Umind. Undoubtedly it was not part of the board’s policy now, because the discontent at Home had _ been sufficient to show it that it was madness to go on as it appeared lo have been going. In consequence, the board was now deliberately endeavouring to destroy tbe impression at Homo that it intended to fix prices. ‘‘That impression.” said Mr Poison, "was very la.rgely the result of the previous policy of the board. It. waved the big stick and talked for twelve months about what it intended to do, and it created such sentiment at Home that wo are still suffering from it."

Even now they' did not have the* facts of the board’s policy, ho continued'. Two men had been elected to tiie board recently who wore opposed to control, and who were candidates of the Free Marketing League. “Wo are led to suppose.” he said, “that actually there Is a majority ot the board opposed to price-fixing, and that a change of policy on tlie part of the board is about to take place. Wo do nol. know tb« facts. When wc asked for information from the board to put before the body of farmers who are supporters of control we gut a vague, ridiculous circular . . . which at least is an insult to an intelligent mail. I say the hoard itself is responsible for the attitude of very many farmers who arc opposed to control. It. has not made its .policyclear, and what its policy is to-day nobody really knows.” ‘•Killing tile Baby.” Captain Colbock expressed disappointment with the president’s speech, coining as it did from Hie father of control. “It appears to me,” lie said, '’lliat when the child is in a very delicate state ofhcailh. you are back-sliding and doing all you can lo kill it,” He said he had never unco heard a man suggest i hat Du; board intended to fix prices. Butter which was subject to control hud only just arrived in London, and how on earth could the Control Board be answerable for the siutnp in London to-day? There were lots of factories that had not yet sold any butler for export. He appealed for a fair ciutnoe for the organisation at i-lomu to get into smooth running order. Mr K. W. Dalrymple supported this plea. ‘Have faith in Dio board,” he urged, "and give them a fair trial.” The motion was carried.