DAIRY PRODUCE AGENTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18205, 28 September 1933, Page 2

DAIRY PRODUCE AGENTS

VIEWS ON RESTRICTIONS LOCAL OPINION DIVIDED BOARD’S SILENT METHODS Local opinion is divided regarding the new regulations restricting agents for New Zealand dairy produce in London. The Kia Ora view supports the Dairy Board’s action, while the. Okitu attitude condemns interference with the policy' of individual dairy companies and also the secrecy of the board ic the matter. Mr 11. P. Hamilton, secretary of the Okitu Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, said that consideration of this matter by his directors had been restricted owing to the absence ot details regarding the proposals. 'The Pnirv Board had not acquainted the dairy companies of the proposals made to it by the London Importers’ Asso--1 pint ion," and it had been impossible t o discuss the problem on a broad policy basis.

When they discussed the matter, the directors endorsed the attitude of the Xcw Zealand Dairy Produce Free Marketing Association, a body formed in North Auckland recently to combat the threatened move of the hoard. FREE MARKETING The resolution to form the free marketing association described the promoters as “those dairy companies which value their freedom to handle their own marketing by themselves consigning or selling their dairy produce to whom they think fit, the object being to take, as an association, any lawful steps that may be necessary to keep this right inviolate, without attempting in any way to vary the present methods of marketing.’’ It- was feared at the time of the formation of this- association that the board might exercise its power to deprive dairy companies of the freedom of marketing their produce where they wished, 'but apart from that and yesterday’s press report the directors knew nothing of the proposals. Mr Hamilton said it was felt that the board should have given dairy companies an opportunity of at, least discussing the proposals before adopting them. When they discussed the matter on the information before them, the, directors were opposed to anything that would take away their freedom in disposing of their produce as they thought, lit. The suggestions savored too much of control, winch had been tried before, but had failed. The present proposals seemed to be aimed at eliminating competition among; London agents, and it appeared as though this would have t he result of eliminating competition among the firms and make them lax in the disposal of New Zealand produce to the best advantage. CAUSE OF COLLAPSE

Mr Hamilton further stated tlialt in a matter affecting the policy of the individual factories to such a great extent, the 'board certainly should have acquainted the factories of its proposals before giving effect to them. It, seemed as though the board was becoming too autocratic in its attitude towards the dairy companies and the dairy farmers generally. Mr .1. 11. Sunderland, secretary of the Ivia Ora Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, when expressing his views, endorsed the main principle of the board’s decision, and said that it should adt to the advantage of tin 1 producers to restrict the number of operators with New Zealand butter on Tooley Street. The last, debacle in t In* butter market, Mr. Sunderland added, was due to the. operation of weak holders. These weak holders might have shown their companies better returns on that occasion than the stronger linns, hut the indiscriminate dumping of supplies on the market at rates below ruling quotations caused tins market- to collapse in a spec, taciilar manner at the beginning of the year, ending in quotations going as Imv as Ms per cwt. If had been claimed that without the. action of those weak holders, the market rates need not, have gone below 80s.

With butter in the hands of a restricted number of agents, there should lie a. better opportunity of maintaining the market at a. more equable level than by supplies divided among a big variety of selling agents, for the Dairy Board should he able to keep in. better touch with the butter.

F. 0.8. SELLING Mr. Sunderland was not in enliro agreement with the policy in regard to f.o.b. sales, for under this portion of the hoard’s policy a company would not he allowed to make an f.o.b. or c.i.f. sale unless it was at least on the London parity existing at the time of the sale. That would mean that latest offers of ll|d per lb. f.o.b. could not be accepted, if the regulations were now in force, for