The Times TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1922. STORM IN THE DAIRY CUP

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11247, 27 June 1922, Page 6

The Times TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1922. STORM IN THE DAIRY CUP

A considerable storm in the circles of dairy production has engaged, public attention during the past few weeks. It raged round the question of establishing a butter pool. There was a moment in which the question seemed about to be answered in the affirmative. The public, perplexed by the volume of arguments pro and con, watched in a certain atmosphere of uncertainty, much like the atmospherio conditions which prevail when doctors differ. The consequential suspense did not last long. The southern dairymen settled the question with a decision which has been described as a bombshell. They decided against the pool proposal, and the storm subsided suddenly, the proposal disappearing as lowering clouds do when a strong wind blows. A reason for the southern decision has been assigned, which, if the assignment is correct, is suggestive. It ie that the southern dairymen feared that some future Government not so favourable to the aspirations of the dairymen as the Government of today might-use the power incidental to the pool machinery—might make itself Very inconvenient to the dairy producers. If this statement be correct, there seems to he some reason for believing that the dairy interest had strayed into politics, and was in danger of substituting political for technical and industrial considerations as its guiding light. As that danger has been averted by the effect qf the decision of the southerners, we can safely offer our congratulations to the dairy interest. The southerners, if we understand their attitude aright, expressed their preference for the periodical auction, as the best way out of what they consider as the grave difficulties of their present situation. The matter was much discussed at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association. The advocates of the auction system relied on the experience of that system in the wool trade. Tboir opponents averred that there was no real analogy, the fact that the aggregate dairy produce output of the Dominion was only a fraction of the aggregate demand in Britain being the dominant differential factor. They added that the situation was further complicated by the uncertainties of the shipping fao-

tor, which at present cannot be relied on for the regularity of deliveries in British markets, essential to the success desired on all sides. This last plea is of minor importance, for the ship-i ping problem, which cannot evade solution, is but temporary. The major objection to the auction system, so far as the adverse arguments go, is that it will not eliminate the speculator. Much was said about the speculator during the discussion. Of that the worst was that, when consignment agents ,take to speculation, their deliveries obtain the best prices in the market, whereas the consignment deliveries in their hands suffer the worst market conditions. To this the reply was made that, theoretically, when the question of commission is fairly faced, the statement of malpractice is absurd, and that, as a matter of fact, numerous aocount soles have over and over again demonstrated that consignment cargoes have obtained the best market prices. The question is largo and complicated—that the discussion has proved. Therefore, the wisdom of the postponement of decision', which was adopted, stands also proved. In the meantime, the spirits of the dairymen are exalted by the good news from the dairy produce market. Prices are soaring again, not because anybody is manipulating, hut because the market, for many reasons of proved value, is bare. The question of alteration of procedure which had become urgent by pressure of falling prices is, therefore, urgent no longer. There is now ample time for a leisurely consideration of this great question of procedure. We invite the dairymen of ■New Zealand to associate two things with that consideration. These are, the interest of the home consumer, and the methods and cost of publicity. These two things are just as important now, when prices are soaring, as they were in the days of slumps. The local consumer is entitled to the market parity, and the local taxpayer is entitled to 'he protected against having to subsidise the producer in order that such parity may be secured. It is a matter for the producers to settle, without spongeing on the consolidated revenue, which, under existing circumstances, must he closed most firmly against them. The settlement may be difficult, but, whatever the difficulty, a subsidy under present conditions of finance can only be a scandal and an outrage, and must be avoided at all cost. As to publicity, the Government is organising a scheme through the publicity department recently established. Is it right that the Government should pay the whole expense of publicity? The various producers have lately been discussing the rising; of means for meeting the expenses of various proposals made for the better disposal of our produoe in the larger market abroad. Now, publicity is, it is now agreed, the most necessary and the most important factor in pushing our produce to the topmost height of consumption due to its quality. But a proposal to the dairy interest to pay a share of the expense of publicity was rejected by one-half of the people interested in dairy production. Obviously here are people who will not help themselves. As such, the only thing to be said about them ie that they are out of court. Until they choose to put their shoulders-to the wheel, the cart that carries their produce must, if stuck in the mqd, remain hogged. They have done too well in the recent past to stand before the Treasury “in forma pauperis.''