Oppose Continuance Of Lump Sum Payments

Northern Advocate, 26 April 1948, Page 4

Oppose Continuance Of Lump Sum Payments

DAIRY BOARD CONFERENCE

THE dairy industry was utterly opposed to the continuation 01 lump sum payments, said the chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board (Mr W. E. Hale) at the annual conference of North Ward at Whangarei today. Mr A. J. Murdoch, North Ward member on the Dairy Board, presided over a fully representative attendance.

“What we all want to see is that the full price received in London for our produce is credited to our industry account,” said Mr Hale.

When the proposal for sotting up the Dairy Products Marketing Commission was being discussed, said MiHale, delegates raised the point as to whether the hands of the new body would be tied by the clause in which the commission hod to take note of direstions from the Minister in regard to Government policy. “It had been suggesced recently by some in the industry,” continued MiHale, “that this might mean that the commission could be instructed to agree to a continuance of lump sum payments for the future.

overseas negotiations, then this industry must be prepared to make a most emphatic protest.

“At the conference Government trade policy was defined as being something to be invoked only when New Zealand required urgently from a country some commodity which that country was unwilling to supply, unless wo shipped dairy produce to her. “The particular instance given was jute. It was pointed out that both the wheat and the sheepfarming industries required jute in considerable quantities; that India was not willing to supply us with the required unless we shipped a certain amount of butter in exchange; and that Government trade policy would require the exchange to be made. “That was a commonsense outlook, appreciated by the industry, and so long as the clause operates in that way, no trouble will arise. Nevertheless this position must be carefully watched by the board, and should any attempt be made to override or to tie the hands of the Commission in their

“It would be unthinkable that the question of continuing the policy oi lump-sum payments should be brought within the definition of Government trade policy, and the industry’s viewpoint has always been so clearly expressed on that issue, that I cannot for a moment imagine any attempt being made to justify a continuation of lump sum payments under today’s conditions.

“When we first reported to you our acceptance of lump sum payments, we made it clear that we agreed only because of the peculiar circumstances existing at the time. “I know that many of you never liked them, always considered- them part of the oricc. and accepted thorn under protest. Our own representatives on the commission are fully conversant with the industry’s views on this matter, and several, including the chairman, have in the past stiongiy expressed the opinion that there should be no continuation of lump sum payments alter 1948 —a view with which I am -sure the industry is in complete agreement. A “What we all want to see is that the full price icceived in London for our produce is credited to our industry account. That, and nothing less than that, will be acceptable to the industry today,” he concluded.