DAIRY CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18545, 3 November 1934, Page 2

DAIRY CONTROL

PROPOSALS CRITICISED STATE DOMINATION V'lfcWS OF MR, G ODDFELLOW Strong disappiovai of the measures proposed for the control of the. dairy industry was expressed by Mr. \\. bloodfellow. when discussing the report ol the Dairy! Commission. . In Air. (; nod fellow's opinion the legislation'now before the. House . ot Representatives would place the dairy industry and agriculture in general under the complete (lomiivdioii of the Government. The dairy industry should and could run its own business much more efficient! v than was possible by ; any Government. All...that was required was that Parliament, Should. , give the. dairy-, farmers the legislation asked, for in l 1934, ■which was an improvement bn jho Danish system, and a thoroughly efficient organisation would rapidly develop. . The farmers would then own and control their 'own -business and would accept full responsibility. . I “FAILURE OF PLANNERS”

Wlifit possible excuse was there, for Government control, which would mean another army of, inspectors and board officials, wlucii must be paid for by the producer? Economists or planners in other countries had been proved wrong » and discredited. Even iti the United States there was an indication that saner counsels would prevail now that the planners had failed. .Mr. Good fellow said that. the commission rightly drew attention to the iieed df acceptance by the dairy industry of the' probable fact that if faced .a long period of low prices for primary ..pro ducts. No improvement, of a permanent nature appeared possible until Germany was once jigain in a position to pay for foreign dairy produce with manufactured goods.' This position had been recognised in London for some considerable time, whereas the whole policy ot the New .Zealand Government in regard to the primary industries had hern one of anticipation of an early return to. high prices “with prosperity fust round thecorner.” Had this diagnosis proved correct, the .exchange depreciation,to-25 pat"; rent, would have been justifiable, bhi, as| a long-term measure, if had 'several’ serious defects, ft s|i6ijld ,’be, replaced by a guaranteed minimum ppjee, which would enable the efficient farmer to carry on, TIIE BRITISH MANUFACTURER, The main objection lb. the,high, exchauge, overlooked, by the commission, was that it penalised the British manufacturer to tiie extent of preventing this country honorably carrying out the. Ottawa- Agreement. Further, it. raided many , internal costs and prevented a further fell, in thq price of goods, and , it- had proved, to be unfair, in its operation, as if paid a big bonus to the farmer when prices were high, «nd a small bonus.when prices were low. If butter were Is per lb, the exchange would be worth 3d, but when butter fell to 6d, the exchange wps. wo.rfh. pnly l£d.

“The elaborate reasons for a subsidy, as set out-in -the report,, are not convincing,” said Mr. Goodfellow. “The British Government cannot object to a subsidy payment, as Britain has adopted it.” The commission’s scheme fpr providing regional restrietions M on bytisr, .stiles was characterised by Mr, Goodfellow as an unwarranted interference, with, trade. Tiie commission's suggestion that pat butter should not be put on the British market because Denmark had found it to be unsatisfactory was an unfortunate conclusion, and rather absurd in view of the experience of others. Hie obvious reason why pats were withdrawn was that Danish butter was riiitde for a quick consumption. On the other hand, New Zealand butter was an oXcolleht keeping butter, arid, for that reason, it was very suitable for the pat Trade, as many merchants had already discovered.

The commission suggests that a delegation should be sent to London to inquire, into marketing), and, to ascertain from the British Government how far they were g.6ing in the matter of agriculture. There was no .need to send another delegation to London. All the information was available in New, Zealand. MORTGAGE CORPORATION Referring to the Mortgage 'Corporation plan, Mr. Gpodfellpw said, that he >vs\s of the opinion., that- no system in. apy, country was better than that of the New Zealand Advances to Settlers Department. “The .Mortgage Corporation icj’ea appears to he designed to clean up the national balance-sheet by transferring a lot of had and doubtful loans to a new account, which would then be gradually written down over a long- period of years.” said Mr. Gondfellovv. “The huge loss on loans made by the Government, due t,o political control, is only furtlir/r evidence of. tlie .failure of .Government, in business. ’’ g. -