DAIRY QUALITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21781, 21 April 1934, Page 13

DAIRY QUALITY

WORKING TOWARD GOAL NEW ORGANISATION SCHEME a A SELF-GOVERNING INDUSTRY ■ ■ ' 3 •" BOARD WITH LARGER POWERS -i No. VL Some leaders of the dairy industry are convinced that it cannot win the higher place in overseas markets to which it should graduate by its manifest advantages in production eo long as it is dependent to a large extent on political control. Politics and clean-cut decisive action seldom go together, and in the existing supply situation there is a clear call for a swift and powerful executive. An illustration of this contention, the nerveless manner in which the politicians are accused of handling, or mishandling, the quota issue, is scornfully quoted. The politicians do not seem to know their oven minds, or, if they dc, seem afraid to speak out plainly. In recent months, -as one described it, Cabinet has been playing hide-and-seek with the industry. Worse than that, as the industry sees it, the Government has been trying to father the responsibility for a decision upon the Dairy Board. The latter originally decided against accepting re- ' striction and in favour of standing on the Ottawa agreement while it operated. But, some contend, the Government, without declaring itself openly, has been attempting to "jockey" the board out of that position and into a decision to accept a voluntary quota. Existing Weaknesses A period has been put to these political manoeuvres by the intimation from the British Government that for the time being it is not interested in dairy quotas. It has taken alternative action by means of a milk subsidy. Meanwhile the Dairy Board is'still being pressed by the New Zealand Government to suggest a solution or solutions of current problems. As one dairy leader put it, "this using of the board as a stalking horse is a pitiful confession of weakness."

In any case, it is asked, what mandate has the board "to answer for the industry? It is true that it is elected on a supplier plus tonnage franchise, but not to govern the whole industry. Its main function is to supervise the marketing end and, oddly enough, it has no direct control of the quality of the products it is expected to sell. Apart from these limitations, the Dairy Board does not appear to stand high' in the industry to-day. Various reasons are given, but the chief appears to be that it is not strong enough in personnel or policy. Sometimes it is blamed for things with which it has no concern, but there appears to be fairly general disappointment at its discharge of. the functions with which it is endowed. Industrial Corporation So it cpmes about that, on the park of the far-sighted at least, there is a desire for a larger measure of self-gov-ernment. They want the industry reorganised from the bottom to the top so that there shall emerge a body which can control, lead and enlighten; which will have such prestige and authority in the industry that it can act with confidence, and to which the Government can fairly look for advice and actual proposals. It is argued that current history in New Zealand and abroad has taught again and again that politics and economics will not mix. The arts of the ■politician are not direct or positive enough to deal with the complex and swiftly-moving questions of modern industry. That fact is being realised in other countries where the tendency is to adopt corporate government in industry. i Obviously, the argument continues, the dairy industry is the right sort of subject for government by such a corporation. Some broad powers would have to be reserved by the National Government, because the welfare of the industry is of national concern and not merely the of those directly engaged in it. But that reservation need not prevent the industry being made master in its own house. Method of Election

Proposals naturally differ as to the form and function of such a body. A favoured suggestion, however, is that the Dairy Board should be reconstituted, given wider responsibilities, and greator powers to carry them out. A few would superimpose on such a board a small and highly-trained executive capable of taking action from day to day in order to keep pace .with the rapid march of economic events. Leaving that proposal aside, ifc seems fairly well agreed that the first step should be to reorganise the board. It is said that the present system of almost direct election does not make for a board strong in personnel. In addition the board's functions are so limited that it does not attract the best men in the industry. Give it more responsibilities and, it is contended, .it will attract men of larger calibre. The method of election chiefly favoured is by progressive elimination. The suppliers would elect the factory, directors, the directors a district council or federation, and the iatter the national board. It is argued that the cream of the administrative talent would come to the top at each stage and the final result should be a board completely competent to discharge the enlarged functions entrusted to it. Functions and Responsibilities

In this board would be joined mo§_t of the functions at present discharged through separate organisations. The board would not only supervise marketing, but the quality of the produce it had to market. Thus it would take over the instructional service of the dairy division and also direct the scientific and research activities at present undertaken under various heads. How far tho industry should be selfsupporting in providing these services and how far it should continue to look to the Government jfor assistance is not so well questioned whether the board should administer the inspectorate as well as give instruction. Some say there would be no difficulty in separating the functions of "padre and policeman," that it is done in other countries, and that with a strong board to prompt it, the Government would provide —could not avoid providing —an efficient inspectorate. This and other details can be threshed out by the industry. The essential point in the minds of those who are disturbed by the present drift is that some such board should be created to supply the leadership, decision and action that is lacking with the present divided control and divided counsels.' Nothing sustained and thorough is to be expected of the politicians, they say, and the industry should bo given the opportunity and the power to reform itself. It possesses the will to quality and asks now for the machinery.