DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18223, 17 October 1922, Page 10

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Sir.—The letters on this subject by "Dairy," A. Saniofd, and E. Maxwe.l exhibit such an absolute misunderstanding 0 { the proposed control that I "would ask for space to submit a statement of the facts for the information of the public in general and the dairy farmers in particular. These writers assume that the Government is promoting legislation to deprive the farmers of the control of tfceir own business; also to trick, the P^ r farmers into liability to a fearsome unlimited tax. Both of these assumptions are false and misleading. The Government is not taking control. The Bill provides machinery for the farmers to control their own business, to protect the industry from rapacious speculators. Mr. Sanford has no justification for describing the levy as a tax. The proposal was originated and developed by the farmers ior farmers, and the board -will be absolutely under the farmers' control.. Mr. Massey was asked by resolution from many dairy companies to introduce legislation controlling the export and marketing of our daily produce. Ho refused, but stated that if convinced that "a large majority" of dairy companies desired that the industry be given com--1 pulsory control he would assist themThe great conference held on September 14 was convened by the committee appointed at a previous. Dominion conference held on May 18 on the question of a pool. Subsequent to that conference meetings were held to consider the question of legislation and control in every district from North Auckland to Invercargill. The decisions of those meetings favoured prompt action to give compulsory control. To reach finality dairy companies were invited to send delegates to consider the question of "legislation upon the lines of the Meat Control Act." That conference .of over 250 delegates "was probably the most representative meeting ever held by farmers in New Zealand and the most harmonious. After full discussion it was resolved by a majority large enough to convince any unbiassed mind of the solidarity of the industry—l3l votes to $0, representing 70,000 tons of produce to 7000—that the Government be urged to ' pass legislation "at this session" on the lines of the Meat Control Act. A representative committee was appointed to j draft the Bill. It should not bo over- ; lot)lied that the question of control ha? ; been discussed, both by individual companies and at conferences ever since April. The Bill is therefore the deliberate expression of the desire of' the dairy farmers. The proposed control is the concrete result of many years of heavy losses due <o dissension as to methods culminating in the agreement by conference in September. The Bill ia entirely machinery for the extension of the co-operation of farmers' manufacturing companies. to the co-operation of those companies to control the marketing of their exportable produce. Bitter experience has taught that without compulsory powers the weaker brethren cannot be controlled. There is no more ••tyranny" in this than in the farmers agreeing to entrust their milk to the business management of their directors. The whole control is clearly in the hands of the farmers. They, through their directors, elect the board and they can at any timo take steps to repeal the Act if not successful. But in this as in other measures we are but adopting a system which has already proved successful in Denmark. Our dairy industry is now-of su«h national importance that we should bo unwise indeed if we failed to take steps to give it solidarity. Disturbed bv an organisation of agents who annually skim off the cream of the profits from the farmers' labour, all efforts to provide a stable ' basis for our marketing on ordinary voluntary lines have proved vairi. It is essential therefore, that companies agree to be bound to support the common cause Until the industry could show a united front *11 efforts at control were foredoomed. Hence the call for legislation whereby the farmers for their own protection have a Treed to submit to the compulsory control of a centra: 1 board There are fortunately men among the leaders of the dairv industry in >ew Zealand with a vision beyond their personal interests who are devoting their powers to tins great work. There are others who see in the solidarity of the farmers only a menace to their profits, who are by devious ways, including inspired letters, seeking to_ detex the farmers from organising to administer tlieir affairs. I trust that neither farmers nor legislators will be deceived by false lights and that this Bill will be enacted and enable our greatest industry to be consolidated. Edwin Gakdinq,