DAIRY EXPORT POLICY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18757, 13 July 1935, Page 4

DAIRY EXPORT POLICY

NEW BOARDS FUTURE OUTLT NE BY < ’ HAI KM AN FIRST WARD CONFERENCE GATHERING AT GISBORNE The future policy of the Dairy Board was outlined by the chairman, Mr A. J. Murdoch, at a ward conference held in the Oily Ilall to-day. This was the first ward conference held by the newly-constituted board and was also the first of its kind in Gisborne. It was attended by dairy farmers from the Coast, Gisborne and Wairoa districts, the directorates of the companies being-strongly represented/ " All dairy companies in the district were represented, comprising Kia Ora, Okitu, Wairoa, Tolaga Bay, and Nsatiporou butter factories, and the Nnhaka cheese factory,' the total tonnage of butter- and cheese represented being about 4000 tons. Mr. Murdoch presided over tlie meeting. Mr Murdoch briefly traced the work of the old board and the reasons for the. constitution of the new organisation, and referred to future possibiliiti.es,' together with the intentions of the board 'in tackling problems confronting the industry. CONSTITUTION OF BOARD Mr. Murdoch said that the new board consisted of four members representing the producers and three representing the : Government. He was a producer, having been dairying for 30 years and h|jl interests in 200 cows. He had alB represented the Ministry of Agriculture for a period. He said be could not speak about the old board, but reviewed the circumstances leading up to the formation of the new board, and said that it was set up at the instigation of the industry it elf, and as a result a commission was appointed, taking evidence throughout New Zealand. The commission recommended that the constitution of the board should be changed, and that the boundaries should be altered. The New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company was big! enough, the commission recommended, for one member, who was Mr. E. E. Hale, Hauraki Plains. Gisborne was in the No. 1 ward, extending from North Auckland southwards. He was one of the four producers representatives, and it might be said . that he, a member of Parliament, might give the Government four members instead of three, but he maintained that his being a member of Parliament would not influence him at all. The Dairy Board worked under the Commission of Agriculture, which worked in conjunction with the Meat Board and all other produce boards, and he believed the Dairy Board and the Commission of Agriculture would work amicably together. In tho main, the positions would operate thus: Directors of companies would make recommendations to the Dairy Board, whose duty it was to sift and analyse those ideas with a view to putting them into practice, but before bringing them in must first consult the Commission of Agriculture, which was tho only body entitled to mako recommendations to the Government. Mr. Murdoch believed the present arrangements would work harmoniously. The board members should work together as a body, should bear no malice against any section of the board which did not concur with other members’ views. Up to the present, the new board was working on good lines and was getting on quite well. At the outset, the board had a greatdeal to assimilate, and producers, might, ask what had ,the board done since it had been elected. It took some time before the members could get a grip of the ' work, but they were ready oow to go ahead. MARKETING AGREEMENT The old Daily Board had an agree-, ment regarding marketing, but the speaker said he did not concur in the agreement, because in his opinion it was not an agreement, for nothing was laid down in black and white. He considered that a proper agreement, properly drawn and signed, should be entered into so that Australia must abide by it and with which New Zealand would abide. The present agreement was a “gentlemen's agreement,” but tho speaker said that Australia did not keep it fully/ selling just when the price suited. ■ / • The present board had approached Australia on the matter of working in co-ordination with one another, and Australia had expressed willingness to work with New Zealand. A meeting of representatives of the two countries had been arranged, when an endeavor would be made to enter into a proper agreement, but unless it was a proper and a binding one on both sides the New Zealand Dairy Board would not be a party to it. Regarding marketing policy, .-Mr. Murdoch proposed that the board’s London manager, Mr. Davis, should come y> New Zealand so that the hoard and loe producers should be able to secure firsthand information regarding the London end. Mr. Davis would arrive in New Zealand in six weeks’ time, and it was hoped to arrange meetings throughout New Zealand so as to bring the marketing problems before, the producer through Mi'. Davis.' LOCAL MARKETING Local marketing was another question the board had discussed. At first, the hoard thought the matter simple, but since had found it a very involved one indeed. The board had taken- evidence in 'Christchurch, si ml lie IstAfod this because statements had beep made that tho board had been on a joyride securing information which the Dairy Commission had already obtained. Mr Murdoch’s reply to this was that the evidence secured' by tilt) commission was confidential. " The board would not move in the matter unless it had full information, for it found dairy companies at the throats of each other, at the expense of the industry as a whole. This . mould not be. (Applause). He quoted a newspaper advertisement with best dairy butter at lid * per lb., “providing the customer bought 2s fid worth of groceries.” The factory in this case, had been paid ll£d per. lb', and the store sold it at l A loss. At the same time, the price of butter from all other factories had been forced down. The person concerned, giving evidence,* said that that was his way of doing business. “But that is not ours,” Mr Murdoch said. (Applause).. ■,