LOWER PRICE OF MILK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21883, 20 August 1934, Page 11

LOWER PRICE OF MILK

DISAPPOINTMENT VOICED REDUCTION NOT ENOUGH BURDEN OF HIGH-PRICED LAND Disappointment at tho sinallness of the reduction in the price of milk for the next four months, decided by tho Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council, is being expressed in several quarters, and there is a feeling that a lower price might well have been fixed. "I was sorry to see that the Auckland Milk Council had made only grudgingly a reduction of Jd a quart to consumers for the summer months," said Mr. A. J. Stallworthy, M.F. "It was also painfully obvious that this was done simply to fall into line with the chairman's statement a feAv months ago under pressure of public protest that a reduction in price would have to ensue. The 'compassionate' reduction to relief workers is to bo wiped out. They must pay tho arbitrary price for milk or go without. This is in a province literally flowing with milk. There is no natural justice in that. Nor is there any, under the Act, in the discrimination between various milk producers, those in and those out of the city supply, or the producers for export as against producers for the city. High-priced Land

"The chairman reports that £65 an acre upward for land is the basis for standard price for milk. Apparently the last thought is for the consumers. They are to be burdened with costs of overcapitalisation of both land and vendor interests, and unfairly made to pay tribute to privileged classes to delay fundamental and inevitable readjustments. Dairying land within approximatelv 20 miles of London is priced at from £2O to £3O an acre. Within milk supply distance of Australian cities land is available at £-1 to £lO an acre.

"Since the national health and wealth both demand a much larger per capita milk consumption, I deeply regret that the consumer masses of the people, offering the largest scope for a broad, generous and expanding policy of milk production and distribution, are being sacrificed by the council to vested interests and a privileged few. Such a policy ultimately is neither in the interests of urban nor rural dwellers."

"Personally, I am very disappointed to see the price fixed at 4£d a quart," said Mr. A. Harris, M.P., who is the promoter of the Milk Council IJepeal Bill at present before the House. "The evidence before the Parliamentary Committee," he said, "convinced me definitely that there is room for a greater reduction. I think the council would have been wise to reduce the price to 4d instead of 4£d, and it could have done so quite easily."

Consumer Being Penalised "Our committee was definitely of opinion that 4d was a fair price," said Mrs. E. McNair, secretary of the representative committee that was organised by the National Council of Women to go into the question of milk supply. Sirs. McNair said the committee admitted that 3d was' too low, and had never wanted the price reduced to that figure. They had thought all along, however, that 4d was quite sufficient, especially in the summer. The trouble was, Mrs. McNair said, that they were dealing witli milk from high-priced farms because they were restricted to the inner area. If Auckland could get the milk from beyond it would be much more satisfactory. The consumer was being penalised because of these people with high-priced land. Some of them had got into difficulties, and they wanted the consumer to pull them out. If thev had an elected milk council, as the Parliamentary Committee recommended, then the public, or the consumer, would be adequately represented on it. At present the council had only two members who represented the consumer. She was perfectly sure that the small farmers were able to supply milk at a lower price than the large concerns.