DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20069, 8 April 1927, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

MR PATERSON’S RESIGNATION. NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. (Special to Daily Times.) WELLINGTON, April 7. Questioned to day whether he had any announcement to make in regard to the resignation of Mr Stronach Paterson as a member of the London agency of the Dairy Export Control Board, the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. J. G. Coatesl stated that there had been no further developments. It was possible that ho would have an announcement to make within the next day or so.' Cabinet met this morning, and had not concluded its deliberations when an adjournment was made at I. p.m. It met in the afternoon but no statement was made. OTHER RESIGNATIONS. ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S EXPERIENCE. PRACTICALLY IGNORED BY BOARD. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, April 7. Concurrent with the announcement of the resignation of Mr Stronach Paterson from the position of Government representative on the London agency of the Dairy Produce Control Board, advice has readied Auckland by mail concerning other trials and tribulations which beset the agency prior to the abandonment of price fixing. It appears that Mr Paterson is not alone in his resignation, but that three repretentatives of the Importers’ Association, who were appointed as an Advisory Committee to the agency in November, had found it impossible to carry on, and in February had severed their connection as advisors. Three other members of the association were persuaded “with some difficulty” to take their place. The original Advisory Committee appointed consisted of Messrs W. A. Robinson, of. the Anglo-American Company, A. A. Allison, of the New Zealand Marketing Association, and H. G. Flint, of Messrs E. W. Mills and Co. Three months of experience with the agency convinced the members of the committee of the impracticability of carrying on. While it was admitted that in some iespects conferences with the agency were productive of a little good, it was stated that the influence of the advisers with tne board was nil, and that decisions with respect to the increasing or lowering of prices for New Zealand produce were made before they were consulted. It was for the purpose of giving expert advice on this phase of marketing in particular that the committee was appointed. In fulfilment of a promise made to the New Zealand producers that they would afford the board the fullest co-operation, the association decided to appoint three other members t» an Advisory Committee. The members who accepted office were Sir Thomas Clement, head of the firm of _ Andrew Clement and Sons, Mr James Gillanders, dairy produce broker, and Mr Davidson, of J. and J. Lonsdale and Co. (Ltd.). Information now available suggests that the experience of this committee was akin to that of its predecessor. . Further light is also thrown on the attitude of Eng land to the board’s policy. Prior to the abandonment of price fixing retailers, wholesalers, and multiple shop owners were said to be very antagonistic to the spirit <>f dictation exhibited in the board’s policy, and were ignoring Now Zealand produce. Instead of the gap between the board and its customers becoming narrower with the experience of the working of the control scheme, 1 it was becoming wider. The position then being created was considered to be not only very serious for the producers, but also for the agents, who had put up the money required for the advances to farmers, and which were then on such a scale that there was again a likelihood of a call for reclamations.