Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, NOV. 5, 1934. DAIRYING CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18546, 5 November 1934, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, NOV. 5, 1934. DAIRYING CONTROL

Those who have followed the discussion in the House on the Agriculture Bill can hardly have failed to be impressed with the unusually high standard of the debate and with the obvious sincerity of a majority of the .ipoaker.s. This, no doubt, was largely due to the fact that, although the bill

was a party measure, even supporters of the Government felt free to criticise it according to their own opinions. Although the proposals contained in the bill were the ntost reactionary of recent years, most, of the speeches were reasoned and constructive,, and there was evidence of a genuine desire to assist in finding some acceptable remedy for n problem of rare difficulty and utmost, importance. It is clear that the House, like the country, has a decided aversion to the establishment of anything in the nature of a bureaucracy to control the destinies of such a vast industry as. dairying, and even with the power to absorb other industries of equal magnitude. the principle involved was a novel and a dangerous one, and the Minister was wise in promising amendments which went some distance

towards appeasing the critics. Even now, however, there Is still a feeling of disquietude, but the difficulty, as Mr. Nash pointed out hn the House and Mr. Downio Stewart to the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, is to suggest an alternative. The report of the Dairy Commission, whatever view may be taken of it as a whole, made it clear that some form of rigid control was essential, and if this much is accepted it is not easy to suggest how effective action could be taken with, any less (drastic provisions than •those con-* tained in the bill. Nearly every speaker in the debate was able to point out one problem or another, but few wore able to propound remedies, apart from the Labor Party’s' latest panacea of fixed prices. The weaknesses of this scheme are so apparent that they hardly require reference. It is significant, however, that th.e proponents of it have carefully refrained from even attempting to explain how it would operate. When it is found in actual practice that it is difficult to dispose of New Zealand butter at , the lowest price in history, the futility of talking about; demanding fixed -higher prices- for ril is apparent. . This, in fact, seems to be the first principle that must be accepted: That New Zealand produce—be it butter or , anything else—is worth exactly wliat it will bring on the : open market. Any attempt to control the- market would be little short of suicidal; it is, indeed, a moot point as to how much the present situation is due to previous attempts to dictate to the marketing interests. There is no reason, however, why every possible effort should not be made to influence and cultivate the market, and to do this it is certain that some regulation of the industry itself is essential. The first demand, particularly in a time of surplus supplies like the present, is that the quality of the product, should be of the highest, and this is not; possible without control. It has been pointed out that one careloss factory can affect the reputation of the whole of the Dominion’s produce, and that the product of one factory can- be detrimentally affected by the indifference of only one of its suppliers. . The argument is carried still further, and it is suggested that one cow in a laigc herd may be responsible for damaging the reputation of a factory. These are obvious defects in the management of an industry which is peculiar to the extent that the produce of its units is necessarily pooled, so that the bad farmer is able to prevent the good one from getting his just reward, yet does not pay the just penally himself. Control of production, therefore, is justified, and it must start on the farm. Nor can it end there. There must be some regulation of shipments to ensure that supplies are spread as evenly as possible, and steps must be taken to provide that when the butter reaches the market it is in the best possible condition. It is unpardonable, for example, that butter should be allowed to remain in store in London for twelve months, as occurred in one case quoted by the Prime Minim or, since such a practice not only lends to destroy the reputation of all New Zealand butter, but also has the effect of depressing prices generally. The first duty of the producer, therefore, is to see that every step is taken to place his produce on the market in the best possible condition. This should be followed by a determined effort to create a permanent, demand for New Zealand butter, in the same way as lias been done by the Danes, whose product because of its consistent quality and the insistence oi consumers for particular brands, is able to command such a high premium. Unfortunately, the policy of the Dominion in the past has tended to create ill-will where goodwill is such a vital factor. Much has been said in Parliament about securing new markets, but it probably will be found that there is more to be gained by thoroughly exploiting the existing market than by searching for new ones. It is only right that the defects in the industry should be remedied by the industry itself, and as this canneff be done without stringent control, control is justified. To accomplish this, however, it is not necessary to give any body of men unlimited authority over all branches of agriculture, and it should not be necessary to burden the general taxpayer—who in many cases is in difficulties himself —with the cost of rehabilitating the dairy farmer.