DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3802, 25 January 1927, Page 22

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

MR W. GROUNDS RETURNS. POLICY WORKING SMOOTHLY. WELLINGTON. January 17. The chairman of the Dairy Control Board (Mr W. Grounds) returned to Wellington to-day after. having spent three months in 'England. The main object of Mr Grounds’s visit to England was to be present in London when the board’s control system was initiated, and he will make a full report to the board at its next meeting. Although disinclined to make any lengthy statement, Mr Grounds told a reporter thar when he left England the system was working smoothly. “I am glad to say that the iiutiation of the system is very satisfactory,” he said. “Tooley street is working in with the board, and when I left London a very good spirit was prevailing as between the agency and Tooley street.” In regard to price fixation, Mr Grounds said that that had been operating right from the beginning of control by the agency. The representatives of the buyers on the committee were Messrs Robinson, Flint, and Ellison, who had been appointed by the whole of the trade and were naturally thoroughly representative. “They express their opinions as to market levels,”, said Mr Grounds “and in every, case in the meetings held while I was in London the majority of the trade representatives were in agreement with the producers’ representatives in regard to the fixing of prices.” “Was that a good time to judge the success of the system?” Mr Grounds was asked. He replied in the affirmative, giving as a reason the fact that prices were rising. “Prices,” he said, “rose from 150 s, which wag the first level at which prices were fixed by the joint committee, to 2705, at which figure thev were when I left.” Questioned regarding the general outlook of the market. Mr Grounds said that the market prospects were distinctly good. The coal strike had very seriously prejudiced the whole position, but happily that was now a thing of the past. “The position regarding Australian supplies,” said Mr Grounds, “seemed very doubtful when I left. The Australian representatives at that time considered that there would be no export from Australia after December. Of course, the rains since have altered the market outlook.” Mr Grounds was asked if he could speak regarding the prospects of New Zealand’s rivals in the market. “There will be a considerable quantity of produce, mostly butter from the countries in Northern Europe,” said Mr Grounds, “and information that was available just before T left London seemed to indicate that Ireland would have a board of control for the marketing of her supplies during the next summer. One Irish authority assured me of that a few days before I left.” Touching on a visit which he paid to New York just after the first shipment of New Zealand butter had arrived by the Hororata, Mr Grounds stated that merchants had told him that they had not tasted such butter for years. . They expressed a very high appreciation of its quality. “We have a market there,” said Mr Grounds. “Notwithstanding the tariff quite a considerable quantity will be put in there this year. When I was there it was expected that the market would remain quite good until April at least.” Mr Grounds also spoke of the efforts which were being made to advertise New Zealand’s produce in England. Arrangements had been made just prior to his departure for a big display at the Grocers’ Exhibition at Birmingham. This would serve as a preliminary means of getting associated with the retailers. It was also proposed to conduct an organised advertising campaign in the Birmingham area beginning on January 29. Following that arrangements would be made for a further campaign in Derby and Nottingham, and other manufacturing centres, where New .Zealand had not definitely captured the market. The campaign, it was planned, would cover the period of maximum supplies. It was anticipated that these campaigns would be. a very useful experience, as their whole aim was sales extension. In conclusion Mr Grounds said that he would make a full report to the. board meeting on Wednesday- next, and in that report he would go fully into the whole position at Homa,

MEETING AT WELLINGTON. WELLINGTON, January 19. A meeting of the Dairy Produce Control Board was held to-day, the principal business being the consideration of a report by the chairman (Mr W. Grounds) on the results of his recent visit to London. No announcement regarding the board’s business was available to the press at tho luncheon adjournment. THE LONDON AGENCY. GOVERNMENT NOMINEE CRITICISED. WELLINGTON, January 20. The situation in regard to the London Agency of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board was fully discussed at the meeting of the board on Wednesday. It was decided to point out to the Acting Prime Minister that Mr 8. Paterson, the Government nominee on the London Agency, was not supporting the board’s policy, and the board considered that be should be retired from the position. The reorganisation of the London Agency will be considered at the first full meeting of the board after-the return of the present producer members in* June. Wednesday’s meeting was attended by, Messrs AV. Grounds (chairman), T. A. Winks, J. R. Thacker, W. Bryant, H. D. Forsyth, J. R. Corrigan, AV. D. Hunt, W. Goodfellow’, T. M. Timpany, and AV. R. Reynolds. Mr Grounds, according to the Dairy Produce Exporter, acknowledging the welcome of the members, said that - despite the compromises that had been effected he was satisfied that, given unified action on the part of the board and the London Agency, it Was possible now to definitely demonstrate the value of the control movement to the producers. Steady action only was required to 'make the position quite clear to the country. The chair-man reported fully Upon Che position in the London Agency, the constitution of which required complete - reconsideration, which, however, need not be entered upon until the return of the producer members, as arranged in con- | nection with the Government nominee, Mr S. Paterson. He was satisfied that no one directly interested in the merchandising of dairy produce should have a seat on that agency. The present nominee had declared himself as definitely opposed to the board’s policy. His continued presence on the agency, therefore, was a serious handicap to the board and a menace to the development of the industry. On the conclusion of the report it was moved: That the Acting Prime Minister be written to pointing out that Mr Paterson, the Government nominee on the London Agency, is not supporting the policy of the board, and is making the position in London very difficult, and the board considers that Mr Paterson snould be retired 'rom the agency. Mr Goodfellow said he considered the worst feature of the position was that Mr Paterson drew a salary of £lOOO a year from the producers. He was entitled to his own views, but. while drawing that salary as a member of the board he should either obey the board’s policy as laid down or resign. Mr Corrigan considered that Mr Coates had ground for a definite grievance against .Mr Paterson, from whom as a Government representative he had the right to expect full, accurate; and unbiassed information. Apparently that had not been given, and the Prime Minister had been misled. Mr Grounds endorsed this view. Mr Paterson had made himself the head and front of the organised representations that were made to the Prime Minister without advising the agency of his intentions. The volume of l epresentations made to the Prime Minister necessarily created misgivings in Mr Coates’s mind, and Mr Paterson had, therefore, placed the Prime Minister in an extremely awkward position. He was entitled to have as much a grievance dgainst Mr Paterson as had the board. The resolution was carried unanimously. It was decided to consider the reorganisation of the board after the return of the present producer members of the board in June next.

LONDON MANAGER DEFENDED. AV ELLINGTON, January 20. In a review of the board’s policy in London, published in the Dairy Produce Exporter, the chairman (Mr AV. Grounds) says: —“I have no desire to revive any controversy that may have taken place in New Zealand during my absence, but I feel constrained to refer to a question which I noticed by newspaper cuttings was asked at a Taranaki .meeting. It ran somewhat as follows: ‘Has the opposition in New Zealand weakened the board in London?’ This should be answered in a -definite affirmative; it very considerably weakened the board in London. I consider it the most disreputable feature of the past controversy that an official and servant of the board should have been subjected to an unjustified and contumelious attack, not in reality because of any personal failing oil his part, but as a means of breaking down the board’s policy. That anj-one connected with the producers’ interests should have associated themselves with this personal attack is to be sincerely regretted. Some of New Zealand’s best friends associated with the trade in London expressed surprise that Mr Wright retained the position, and thus exposed hinfself to this attack for so long. The New Zealand producers have reason to be thankful that his usual grit did not forsake him even in his _trial. His best friends will make no claim to perfection in him. He is a keen Scottish business man, trained in Glasgow, which is known to be a hard school. He has a great capacity for work, finding his greatest pleasure in doing it well. Like any good Scotsman, he loves to drive a good bargain, which, it should be remembered, is not for himself, but for the New Zealand producer, whose service he has undertaken. All those who have been associated with Mr AVright regard his integrity as unimpeachable. He is prepared at all times to discuss procedure and policy with anyone associated with the business who desires to advance an alternative proposition. He argues keenly, and is prepared to accept proof that his ideas are wrong, but if that proof is not forthcoming he expects his own conclusions to be accepted. Let it be remembered that every strong and estimable characteristic has its defects, and the brilliance or excellence of its quality occasionally, serves

to illuminate those defects. We would have been poor guardians of the interests entrusted to our care if we had been prepared to sacrifice these qualities to avoid minor defects. A well-balanced agency can remedy the defects without sacrificing the qualities. “It is not necessary to outline the early steps taken to develop this idea of antagonism to the manager prior to my arrival in London, although these can be traced with reasonable correctness, but, subsequent to my arrival in London, cablegrams were sent stating that the trade objected to Mr Wright. There is no doubt that this was represented to Mr Coates by certain members of the trade, but probably with greater frequency by the Government representative on the agency who never wearied in the assertion. What soon became clear to me was that the move was only a subterfuge to break down control. This was proved at the joint conference of some members of the trade and ourselves before tbe Prime Minister. It was well known that the large distributors who had for some years known and worked with Mr J. B. Wright were satisfied of the efficiency and fairness with which the policy would be administered if he remained in charge. It was also known that they would not have been satisfic'd if any other man had been selected to take his place, especially a trade man, for in this Mr Wrigbt’s position was unique. He knew the trade, but was not of it. It is not difficult, to discern the inspiration of this suggestion of his deposition. It may be plainly stated that all the best interests in the trade were opposed to this personal attack on . Mr Wright, and any message conveying other impressions to board members is a sheer misstatement of the facts. I strongly urge the setting aside of any thought that Mr Wright desires to dominate the policy or procedure of the board. His supreme desire is that his work shall be well and successfully done.