Captain Rushworth at Kaitaia.

Northland Age, Volume 28, Issue 65, 5 September 1928, Page 2

Captain Rushworth at Kaitaia.

Dairy Control Controversy. ( t Government's Action c i Opposed To Board’s Policy ■ At his Kaitaia meeting on 1 Thursday, August 2jrd Captain j Rushworth said: “For the particular mirpose 1 . ha\e in view to-night, I wish, first 1 of all, to turn your attention to what is known as the "Dairy 1 Control Controversy.” 1 do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits ot the policy that the Board was set up to carry out, but let us consider for a moment some of the admitted facts connected with the creation and operation of that piece ot distributin'! machinery. For some twenty years dairy fanners had been calling for the institution of some such authorityAt first the demand was weak and attracted little political attention. Gradually the agitation grew i niil the Government, stirred up to take some action, took a re- j itrendum of those engaged in the j industry. A large majority sup- j ported the proposal but opposi- : tion v as stirred up amongst those inti re ts which considered that they stood to lose by such an in- j ovation. Again was the refer- 1 enduuttaken and an even larger majority supported the proposal. With a general election in view and fearful of the consequences of a continued refusal an Act was passed and the Board was 1 brought into being. It was com-; posed of merchants, producers! an 1 G rverr.mcnt nominees. In ’ order that the policy of the Boatd could be put into operation, it j was necessary to set up a London j Agency. This was done and the j Agency consisted of one member: of the Board w!io was in favour j of the Control policy and one who I was frankly opposed to it. The j Government then insisted on ap- j pointii g a nominee as an addi- j tional member of this Agency ! and Jt creed that the dairy farm- i ers should pay that nominee at 1 the rate of £ 1,000 per annum for! safeguarding their interests. For this key position of the i whole machine the Government j selected a gentleman who, it sub-1 sequent! v transpired, was so bit-1 terly opposed to the policy of tlie Board and all that it stood lor, that, when offered the appointment, he informed the Prime Minister in writing that "he was so opposed to the policy of the Board that he would leave no stone unturned in his efforts to prevent it being carried out.” The Government, however, persisted in making the appointment. From the moment that the London Agency of the Board commenced to function this gentleman proceeded to act in accordance with his expressed intentions. The Chairman of the Board, on his return to the Dominion from London, laid certain evidence before the Board with the result that the Board, com posed as it was of conflicting in terests, was so impressed tha t after the fullest investigation it passed a resolution unanimously calling upon the Government to relieve their nominee on the London Agency of his duties. The Government took some three months to consider this unanimous request and then replied that they saw no valid reason for complying with the request seeing that they were entirely satisfied with the manner in

which their nominee to the London Agency had carried out his duties. Is it possible to conceive any other explanation than that the Government did not dare to further withstand the wishes of the dairy farmers but that whilst appearing to comply with the insistent demand, took such pre cautions in setting up the machinery as to be quite sure that the policy laid down in the Act would not be carried out. Nothing but the properly audited Balance Sheet will convince a large number of people that the people interested in the failure of the Board’s policy were not substantial contributors to the political fund of the Party at present in power.