The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1926. SHARP DIVISION; NOT REASONABLE UNANIMITY

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12433, 29 April 1926, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1926. SHARP DIVISION; NOT REASONABLE UNANIMITY

So far as absolute control is concerned, the Prime Minister asks that the producers must be at least “fairly unanimous” before that policy is allowed to run. Just how unanimous, or divided, the producers are on that question was revealed by what happened at the Dominion-wide conference yesterday. The figuYes which follow are authentic—not estimates.

When the chairman of the conference, Mr Grounds, refused to allow the meeting to fix its own method of electing members of the board, delegates from 113 factories representing 21,638 suppliers withdrew from the meeting in a body. In other words, representatives of Over 43 per cent, of the clairy farmers of this country left the conference, re-established themselves in another place, and passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the one producer one vote principle. We commend the figures to the earnest attention of Mr Coates and those Ministers who are not obsessed by the principle of compulsory marketing. The Prime Minister has asked for reasonable unanimity. Far from reasonable unanimity, what is before us is sharp division. The Grounds-Goodfellow clique won out on the tonnage basis of election. They held the cards, and played them astutely. But Mr Coates may be reminded of this fact: In his first circular to the industry, Mr Grounds said that the conference would decide for itself the method of voting. Subsequently, on second thoughts, the industry was notified that the system of voting was definitely fixed on a tonnage basis.

What, or who, was responsible for the change? Here is another pertinent point: Mr Grounds has'time and again ordered absolute control for August next. He told the meeting that he could not see what political fojrce could intervene to prevent absolute control coming into operation on that date. Yet we have before us a dairy-produce export license which concludes with the words: “This license shall remain in force up to and including the 31st day of August, 1926.” Which is to say that compulsion must be postponed till September Ist. Mr Grounds is a month out in his calculations. It is an error which will not strengthen the confidence in the board’s ability to makp a howling success of the biggest trade proposition in the Dominion—a trade worth annually. A pronounced cleavage at this end, growing disquiet at the London end—these are the outstanding results to date of the prospect of compulsory marketing. Among local opponents of the scheme is being prepared a challenge to test the validity of the board’s claim to exercise absolute control. The Full Court is to be asked for an injunction to restrain the board from attempting to enforce compulsion on the date set down. . From Home are sent cabled warnings against the dangers of introducing such an element into the trade. Are these things mere airy gestures to be lightly brushed aside or ignored, or are they considerations of vital importance to the issue? ft is for Mr Coates to decide, and we hope that his decision will be governed by his own convictions, and nothing else.