The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 1926. MOSTLY “EYE-WASH”

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12483, 26 June 1926, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 1926. MOSTLY “EYE-WASH”

For sheer unadulterated “eye-wash,” the statement issued by the Prime Minister regarding the “Times”-“Daily Mail” cablegram is unmatched.

The word “issued” is used advisedly. A careful scrutiny of the pronouncement will reveal that it was framed by the Dairy Control Board. Mr Coates merely passed on the board’s rejoinder. He is “glad to be informed that” . . . and he then proceeds to broadcast the “information”—which clearly was supplied by the board.

The point is important. There are a few clever people on the board (and off it). They laid their plans well with a view to securing the utmost possible publicity for their reply to our cablegram. It is said that the Press Association was approached first'to that end, but nothing came of it. The responsibility for “putting over" the repudiation and explanation fell to Mr Coates. A pretty, but obvious, scheme.

Actually, there was no need for the Prime Minister to approach the board to ascertain its policy. He has made speeches on the subject of absolute control, listened to scores of them. Presumably he has followed, if ever so cursorily, the controversy which has raged in the Press for months. It is incredible, therefore, that he should have found it necessary to ask the board what it intended to do, or not to do, on and after September Ist. The nature of the board’s statement is perfectly understandable. What more could it be expected to imply than that pricefixing was farthest from its thoughts? It is only human to deny or minimise shortcomings and multiply the virtues. The board does this with a fine gesture. All this talk of conferring benefits on producer and consumer alike is moonshine. No man can serve those two masters and live, in the economic sense. There is no sentiment in business. It is the producer’s concern to obtain the best price available for his goods; it is the consumer’s to pay as little as he can for those goods. The Dairy Control Board was set up wholly and solely in the interests of the producers: to secure for its clients a better return than they have enjoyed in the past. No one denies that that is its purpose first and last; no one can deny it. ; And if the farmer receives more for his output, it comes out of the pockets of the man who buys the pound of butter or cheese. The board is out (it avers) to maintain “the goodwill and satisfactory relationship between the two parties which has hitherto existed.” More moonshine. Ihe New Zealand producer troubles as little about the British consumer as the British producer does about the New Zealand consumer. The one is the natural opponent of. the other; it is so the whole w.orld over. The economically impossible ideals the board professes are to be realised by “well-ordered shipments” and stabilising prices. That is along the lines of the Meat Board’s policy. The Meat Board has achieved .its purpose without interfering with the system of f.o.b. sales. Why should the Dairy Control Board wish, or be allowed, to do otherwise? Why this projected plunge into Socialism? Finally, we commend to the attention of the House generally a news article in another column. It is impressively relevant to the discussion. •