THE DAIRY CONTROL BOARD’S POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19737, 13 March 1926, Page 9

THE DAIRY CONTROL BOARD’S POLICY.

TO THE EDITOK. Sip.,—Having been laid aside by influenza, I have been unable to deal with Use proposals and questions raised by Mr Grounds in his recent address in Dunedin. But the board’s policy is so fraught with serious consequences to the dairy farmers, and indirectly to the welfare of the community that I crave your indulgence to criticise the schemes of the Control Board. I would direct the close attention of all concerned to the claim made by Mr Grounds on behalf of the Control Board that the board, per medium of immensely expensive tours of European and American markets, has investigated and acquired knowledge covering every phase of shipping, storing, and marketing our exports cf butter and cheese, with the method of financing the output from primary producer to the final market. In the realms of finance Mr Grounds assures us the arrangements are so satisfactory as to leave nothing to desire, nothing unprovided for, with definite provision to finance the monthly “ pay-out ” to suppliers. But mark what followed at the recent meeting in Dunedin when I put this to Mr Grounds: “ You say your arrangements to finance the output under control are assured, anci definitely made?” Mr Grounds replied “ Undoubtedly.” “ Will you then,” I asked, “ your finance being assured, guarantee the suppliers, under control, in the coming season the same percentage as monthly advances they now receive?” Mr Grounds replied “ Ko, he could not, and would not give any guarantee.” Will the suppliers and directors of , factories read, mark, and mentally digest that reply? And whilst pondering his remark will they reflect that, had I put the same question to any of the experienced directors of factories, with assured finance, who were present in the room they could have answered the question at once in the affirmative. But these extravagantlysalaried officials could not. Why? The answer will be found later. And is it not unjust, even tyrannous, that a dairy farmer, with the full product of his labour leady for market, should be compelled to hand it to another for disposal with >ut a voice in its disposal—to hand over his sole means of existence, in utter ignorance of when he will receive payment or whether in sufficient instalments to meet his obligations? But the sole reason for Mr Grounds’s inability to guarantee reasonable monthly advances on an equality with the percentages we now receive—surely a most moderate request—is easily found in the Control Board's wildly speculative pooling and marketing proposals. In support of my statement I direct the attention of suppliers and directors of dairy factories to the following proposals, in Mr Grounds’s address: — No. 1. “Produce to be allocated to the selected marketing firm. . . . Each of the importers would put up a letter of credit. . . . Advances would be available on the store warrants of marketing linns.” Now, this simply means that the “firm” sells on commission, the time of sale and price being at the dictation of the board. What percentage of market value won’d the “credit note” embody under such conditions? Seventy per cent.? I trow not, but would welcome proof to the contrary. No. 2. “Differentiation in payments for quality is to be made to encourage factories to turn out good quality produce.” But the fact remains that two years have elapsed, and the board has not yet been able to decide what constitutes first and second quality (vide an address by Mr Grounds at llawera), and it is a pertinent question, Where, when, and by whom is the “quality” to be decided? No. 3. “There will be two pools for butter, and one pool, perhaps, for cheese.” Let all concerned, experienced suppliers and directors, impartially consider these three extracts from Mr Grotinds's specchei. and they will see at once that each of them involves reservations of cash derived from sales for contingent liabilities to “pool funds,” “differentiation” funds, etc. These alone will limit “credits” and cash, and so makes it impossible for Mr Grounds to assure To the suppliers under control equal conditions, to those we now work under in regard to monthly advances. And to make them less than at present will cause hardship, and even disaster, to ninny folk. And the plunging, reckless policy of the hoard, coupled with the campaign of insidious. and not too scrupulous, misrepresentation of those who oppose, or criticise, its policy or procedure, gives cause for reflection not only to opponents, but to firm friends and supporters of a sane measure of control. At llawera, barely a, month ago, the most representative meeting of dairy farmers ever gathered to meet the full board was addressed for four hours, and finally defeated a proposal for absolute control. Then at Mr Grounds's meeting in Dunedin last Monday week a motion of confidence in the board was “defeated on the voices.” and a few days later, at his meeting in llangiora. the proposal to bring in absolute consol was defeated by 80 votes to three. There is the publicly expressed opinion of the working dairy farmer, and will the board, or Mr Grounds, continue the policy of misrepresenting it?—l am, etc.. ' W. D. Mason. Middlcmarch, March 10.