MR HOLLAND AND DAIRY PRODUCE PRICES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20089, 4 May 1927, Page 7

MR HOLLAND AND DAIRY PRODUCE PRICES.

TO THE EDITOa. Sih,—-When Mr H. E. Holland sets forth his views on the dairy control question and on dairy produce prices, it is surely pertinent to ask him what practical experience he has had of the pgst or present system of the marketing of dairy produce, and whence he derives the information that enables him to explain, with such confidence and dogmatism, the why and the wherefore of the phenomenal fall in prices to which our exported dairy produce is subjected at the present time? 1 will answer the question of hia practical knowledge and experience of /the 'marketing of dairy produce by stating that he has none. And 1 have no hesitation in stating that his explanation “that the position that had arisen recently was not due to the operations of the board, but to the work of speculators and to supplies being hold in storage prior to the arrival of "the new season’s supplies,’’ is,simply a rehash of the puerile nonsense that has emanated from the chairman of the Control Board in his frantic endeavour to hide from the producers the actual facts leading up to the disastrous effects of the board’s marketing policy. Wo have a right to expect from the Loader of the Opposition, when dealing - with such an important question, an accurate statement of the facts. But Mr Holland is reported as having said: “When a vote was taken in June, 1923, 71 per cent, of the suppliers recorded themselves as being in favour of the compulsory clauses of the Bill.” Now, the simple fact of the matter is that such an issue has never been put before the suppliers. The opponents of compulsion have consistently pressed for the submission of that issue to the vote of the suppliers, but in vain. I write from memory, but I think I am correct in stating that we hake never yet had a 60 per cent, total vote of the suppliers. Moreover, when they did vote on the subject of bringing the law into operation, they had no opportunity of knowing the scope of the _ Bill. But we had a straight-out issue in the last election of members to the board, in Southland and Taranaki. In Taranaki the retiring member of the board was defeated by the adopted candidate of the Free Marketing League by 353 votes to 250, ’ whilst in Southland Mr T. M. Timpany, on the straight-out issue of a free market versus compulsory pooling and marketing, polled 194 votes as against 56 polled by the retiring member of the board (Mr J. Fisher). This was the only occasion when the issue was compulsion, or no compulsion, and why docs Mr Holland ignore it? Remember that these votes were polled by the directors of the co-operative factories of •Southland and Taranaki electorates, the board having carefully, with the assistance of _ Parliament, deprived the individual dairy farmer of his voting power. With regard to the actions of the Prime Minister, Mr Holland is undulging in political propaganda, pure and simple, with dairy control for a stalking-horse. The Prime Minister has been a strong supporter of the Dairy Control Board, and hostile to the board’s opponents, throughout the agitation. To say otherwise is to ignore the obvious. Here is one instance to prove my contention:—At the big conference convened by the board, where 150 delegates loft the conference and held an independent meeting, rather than agree to be deprived of_ the right of voting as indicated by Parliament, these delegates made arrangements to place their views before the Prime Minister. He agreed to meet and hear them after meeting the other delegates in conference! Later, he met the chairman of the board and his supporters, and promised them that ho would give effect to their views and resolutions by amending the Dairy Control Act. This in the face of the fact that our resolutions and view of the matter had never been before him, and that ho had arranged to meet us before corning to a decision. No, Mr Coates cannot bo accused of hostility to the Control Board. Right up to the day ho landed in England and became acquainted with the disastrous result of the board’s policy of bunkum and bounce, his partisanship was obvious to everyone concerned. Mr Holland is “barking up the wrong tree.” The dairy farmer is not so easily misled. Most of us have sufficient experience to enable us to discern those who are willing to assist to mend matters rather than accentuate the existing trouble. I do not know Mr Stronach Paterson or his relations with the Prime Minister. But I do know, and so does Mr Holland, that the lato Prime Minister (Mr Massey), as head of the Government, promised the objectors to the compulsory clauses that he would sec that capable and independent men would be appointed to the board to represent the Government and protect the interests of the producers, by keeping the Government in direct touch with the operations of the board, and to act, I repeat, as a brake on anv hazardous or unwise policy of the board. Mr Stronach Paterson has only done his simple duty, and ho deserves praise for having the courage of his opinions, Mr Holland to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, Mr Jorns, chairman of the London committee of the board, supports Mr Paterson. Docs Mr Holland accuse him also of working in the interest of Tooley street? A preposterous suggestion.—l am, etc., W, D. Mason - . Middicniarrh, May 2.