DAIRY INDUSTRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume 82, Issue 25273, 6 August 1945, Page 2

DAIRY INDUSTRY

LUMP SUM PAYMENTS

CONFERENCE DISCUSSION (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Saturday

The question of the lump sum payments by Britain was raised at the Dominion dairy conference by Mr A. J. Sinclair, who said the industry was still not completely satisfied about the disposal of payments amounting to £28,000,000, or £35,000,000 in New Zealand currency. If Mr W. Goodfellow, who represented the industry in London when the price increases were negotiated a year ago, said definitely they were not entitled to any part of the lump sum payments they would be satisfied for nil time. Had Mr Goodfellow ever given such an assurance? he asked.

The chairman, Mr Wi K. Hnle, said that when .Mr Goodfellow returned to New Zealand he did not give the Dairy Hoard any such assurance, but explained he had had to undertake to treat matters disclosed during negotiations as confidential. On the suggestion of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, a joint committee was set up by, the Dairy Hoard and Meat Board to investigate the whole matter. He had reported, the findings of that committee to ward conferences. The committee was satisfied that the lump sum payments were not tied to production.

Information Before Committee The question was not whether Mr Goodfellow was satisfied but whether the industry was satisfied, said Mr C. I'. Agar, a member of the joint committee. If there had been any claim which producers could have made to the lump sums the committee would have made it on their behalf, "if the producers cannot accept our assurance that they have no claim to the funds they should get someone in whom they have greater confidence in the future," he said.

Statements made by the joint committee had always been qualified by the phrase "information submitted to," said Mr Sinclair. That was why the producers felt they were entitled to know a little more. Had the committee received all the information it required? he asked.

"The information disclosed to us was a complete file of correspondence on the negotiations between the Government of this country and the Government of Britain," said Mr Agar. "Not one iota was kept from us once. We had given an assurance that the State documents concerned would be treated as confidential."

Must Not be Repeated "What Mr Agar has said is, to the very best of my belief, true," said Mr W. W. Mulholland, another member of the committee. "I say emphatically that as far as I could possibly learn, not only in committee but outside, the payments were specific payments not, directly connected with our produce. "However, there is in the method a great danger to the primary industries of Now Zealand. It must not be repeated. The circumstances which justified it cannot recur. An attempt to repeat it would be an attempt to divide the prices of primary producers into two, and there must he a motive for such an attempt. While I defend the present instance with the complete belief that 1 am stating the truth, I realise there is a danger there." Final Arrangement Tails Mr W. Marshall, a third member of the committee, confirmed Mr Agar's remarks. He was not only of the opinion that producers had no claim to the funds, but in all circumstances was satisfied the final arrangement was fair to the producers. In future trade agreements with the United Kingdom, however, there should be no repetition of such methods, because it had been impossible to convince farmers the payments were equitable. Mr Agar said the lump sum payments which were to be made during the next two years had not been considered in fixing the new price. If they did not belong to producers in the future, what ground was there for believing they had belonged to them in the past? Mr H. E. Blyde snid the conference

should let the industry know it was satisfied that producers had no claim to the lump sum payments, but should put it on record that in future prices should bo directly related to produce, and not split up. A motion to that effect was carried.