DAIRYING CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 7 June 1927, Page 5

DAIRYING CONTROL

ADVERSE CRITICISM BY MR G. H. BUCKERIDGE WAS THE BOYCOTT REAL? One of the leading authorities in dairy matters in the Taranaki province is Mr G. H. Buckeridge, who recently returned to .New Zealand after spending BJ, weeks in England, Scotland, and Wales, investigating the position on behalf of a group of South Taranaki dairy companies, m an interview last week (says the Auckland “Star”). Since his return Mr Buckeridge has addressed • the factories concerned in his inquiries, and at their instigation his conclusions have now been published. “My investigations,” said Mr Buckeridge, “were more in the nature of a judicial inquiry than anything else, and I therefore took exactly the same precautions in obtaining evidence as would be taken in any judicial court of inquiry, obtaining the whole of the evidence in writing, each page erf which bears the official stamp of the association or firms and the signatures of the responsible officers and representatives of firms.”

A SEARCHING INQUIRY •Nine associations and 24 firms were interviewed, and their replies to questions submitted were as follows: — How has the goodwill of New Zealand business been affected by' the advent of control? —Eight of the nine associations and 21 of the 24 individual businesses replied that the goodwill had fmdoubtedly neen adversely affected. Has the control system of regulating inter-trading between importers in New Zealand butter or cheese had any effect upon the sales of New Zealand produce, and, if so, has the effect been in the direction of improving the sales of New Zealand produce? —The replies indicated that of the nine associations four were of the opinion that the sales had been adversely affected, and five expressed no definite. opinion. Of the 24 firms, 17 stated that the sales had been adversely affected; one replied that the sales and business had not been adversely affected and six gave no definite reply. Further questions were asked concerning control, one question being : What is your opinion regarding absolute control, as compared with moderate control, i. 0., attending to frieght ftnd insurance contracts, regulating supplies of goods to the market, and advertising the national brand in co-operation with the importing firms? —The replies indicated that the nine associations and 21 of the firms were definitely against absolute control. There was some expression of opinion that moderate control was desirable.

A further question was asked: What is your opinion of price fixation under control? The replies indicated that the nine associations and 21 individual firms were emphatically of the opinion ihat price fixation was unworkable and unwarranted.

HOSTILE TO CONTROL “During the first few weeks of my investigation,” said Mr Buckeridge, when interviewed, “I found the general opinion in regard to New Zealand and the operation of control was extremely hostile, so much that the almost unanimous expression was to the effect that while they, liked New Zealanders and New Zealand produce, and would in ordinary conditions sooner sell and push New Zealand produce than that of any other'country, they found it impossible to ■ deal with us under the Control

Board’s policy, and much as they disliked it, they said they were now placed 4 in the position that they could not deal with our produce,' and were pushing anything rather than New Zealand produce. • They were entirely indifferent as to what was taking place under the hoard’s policy, as at that time they had no interest whatever in New Zealand or its produce, and did not want to hear anything about it or to discuss it.

A DEFINITE BOYCOTT VThis'seems! to me,” continued Mr Buekeridge, “to disprove entirely the statement made by Mr Grounds in Stratford recently, that there was no boycott of New Zealand produce in the United Kingdom. When such a large body of produce merchants as those represented in my report asserted that they were not interested in, and were pusning any other produce rather than New Zealand produce, I do not know any other way of describing their attitude than as a boycott. Probably the greatest condemnation that could have been levelled at the board’s policy would have been to take a photograph of Tooley Street on any of the first Friday, mornings after my arrival in London. It would have been possible almost to have fired a cannon along the street between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30, the busiest, time of the day generally, without hitting any person, as there was scarcely a buyer or a salesman on the street indicating an entire lack of interest. In all my experience of Tooley Street on previous occasions when I have visited London I have never before seen such a state of affairs on market day. After the removal of price fixation, however, Tooley Street almost immediately assumed its usual busy aspect.” As a result of his investigations and the 1 information he had obtained, Mr Buekeridge said he was firmly convinced that it was imperatively necessary for the producers to maintain their Control Board, but that the board must exercise common sense and business-like methods and use every effort to retain the goodwill of the small retail' shop keeper and of the wholesale merchant, who carries and finances him.