DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19498, 5 June 1925, Page 6

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

ADDRESS BY MR WILLIAM ROBERTSON. Mr W. Robertson, who is contesting a seat on the Dairy Control Board, addressed a meeting of the Farmers’ Union in the County Council rooms, Oamaru, on Saturday last. Mr R. .Sinclair occupied the chair, and introduced the speaker. Mr Robertson stated that he had been asked by a large number of producers to allow himself to become a candidate. He was of the opinion that the producers of Otago should nave representation upon the board. He did not think they should allow the board to secure absolute control. He agreed that tho Dairy Control Board had done good work in the past 1 in the matter of securing reductions in freight, etc. In his view one of the most important questions the board ought to have considered was the regulation of shipments to the London market. Much could have been accomplished in the first year of the board’s existence in this direction. Nothing would satisfy the extreme section of tho board except absolute control. Mr Robertson feared very much that the producers had not realised tho meaning of absolute compulsory control. Absolute control meant that no dairy company in New Zealand, except two or three, would be permitted to make a sale for export from New Zealand. As producers and co-operative companies now realised, after AJtgust, 1926, no buyers would bo found in New Zealand, and no f.o.b. sales would be permitted. The speaker ventured to say, that, never in the history of New Zealand had dairy fanners been asked to vote on a question of so much importance. T 6 his mind,’ if absolute control were persisted in, it would mean a calamity, and he wished to press this matter home to every fanner. Ho added: “Did you expect, that compulsory control was to bo enforced when you voted for control last year?” They had been misled in the matter. They wfero told by Mr Grounds and his followers that although it was necessary to include compulsion in tho Bill, it would never, excepting under extreme circumstances. be enforced. Yet, here they were, as from August, 1926, with compulsory control operating. To the speaker it was a most serious step. It meant turning the whole system of business upside down. The Homo people were watching New Zealand, and it was no doubt a fact that New Zealanad produce had not the place on tho London market which it enjoyed a few years ago. Wore they aware that the largest dairy company in Now Zealand, which had two representatives on the Control Board, was permitted to sell and export about 25 per cent, of its output? This, ho, believed, meant that this comany, with two representatives on the board, hud assisted in framing legislation governing all companies. Yet they, themselves, had 25 per cent, of their output free from control until the year 1930. Surely there was something unfair in such an arrangement as this. It would almost appear as though the whole of the export trade of New Zealand was to a large extent being dominated by this one company. Was this a desirable thing in the interests of the whole of the producers? ■ Mr Grounds had said that limited control was no control. In answer to this, Mr Robertson referred to tho Meat Board. Had they used compulsion? No! They had found it unnecessary. Everyone engaged in that industry appreciated what tho Meat Board had done. They had oven the confidence and admiration of producers by adopting businesslike methods. Mr Robertson mentioned the fact that Otago had approximately 7000 dairy farmers. Yet it was the only province in New Zealand that .had no producers’ representative on the board. He favoured the “ward” system of election. Mr Robertson said Mr Grounds had created the impression that compulsory control was in operation in Denmark. He quoted an authoritative document to show that this was not the case. In Denmark there were Co-operative Exporting Associations, which comprised roughly one-third of tho co-operative creameries, and handled approximately one-third of the total butter exported; about one-third of tho butter exported was bought in Denmark direct from individual co-operative creameries by English wholesale houses which maintained purchasing representatives and operated purchasing depots in Denmark, the remaining third being bought, by Danish butter merchants who supplied the home trade and exported butter to foreign countries. Each creamery in an export association agreed to deliver its total butter production to the association for one or two years, thus assuring the association a regular supply. In conclusion Mr Robertson referred to the fact that for a number of years, quite a number of the butter and cheese companies in the South Island had, when tho market warranted, sold their produce, and by doing so, had in .most cases been able to pay to the suppliers more per lb butterfat than those factories which had consigned. Under absolute control this would be impossible. Ho quoted the opinion ot Mr W. J. Poison, president of the Farmers’ Union, that the boaid was acting with undue haste in seeking absolute control. He asked the dairy farmers, whether m favour of control or not, to record their votes in his favour, as opposition was a desirable thing on a board of this character. The company which he represented was a co-operative company, and was opposed to compulsory control. This fact seemed to disturb quite a number of Otago cooperative factories. Fortunately the Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Co. (Ltd.) was the first , co-operative butter factory in ■Otago, and he was pleased, to say that the Articles of Association were as co-operative as those of any dairy company in New Zealand. , , , , , . , At the conclusion of the address which was listened to attentively, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded the speaker.—(Published by, arrangement.)