BUTTER-FAT LEVY.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 29, Issue 46, 15 June 1917, Page 4

BUTTER-FAT LEVY.

A COMPANY WHICH DOES NOT ' OBJECT. The Rongotea Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd., has forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. W. D. S. MacDonald) a copy of a letter which it had sent to the secretary of the National Dairy Association on the subject of the butter-fat levy. The letter reads as follows: — “In imposing the levy of Jd per lb. butter-fat, the Government had a perfectly hgitimate object in view—namely, to make geed the loss which would have been sustained by those factories which have consistently, supplied the local market in the belief that New Zealand is honourably entitled to a fair proportion of their output before the butter is shipped Home. Whether the Government took the best method of meeting this difficulty is a question which the, Government, on the one hand, and the dairy factories on the j other, add very decided and contrary opinions; but in petitioning the Government to refund ihe sum cf £300,000 fac*. is ignored that this sum has not bom retained by the Government, but is being paid to those factories supplying the local market. In view of the enormous demands which will be made upon the Government on account of the war, we, cannot supj ort any proposal asking that the ab- .c «um should be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund. To talk about the laws of supply and demand, the right to open market values, etc., at a time when, if it were not for the viliganeo of our Navy, New Zealand butter would not bo worth £SO a ton owing to the submarine menace, does not to our mind shew a just appreciation of the position. If some dairy companies believe that an injustice has been inflicted through the imposition of a ‘ciass tax,’ we can recall to mind several injustices in Europe since the outbreak of war which compel us to keep qui«t. Our candid opinion is that the da ; iy companies of New Zealand as a whole have no reason to complain, and that they wouuld be better employed concentrating their energies towards bringing about a revision of the Excess War Profits Tax in order to make its incidence more equitable.”

In forwarding the letter to the Minister the company wrote as under: — “A great deal of the dissatisfaction engendered by this levy has been brought about by the manner“in which dairy cpmpanics have dealt with it. We know cheese factories that were paying 18d for butter-fat before the imposition of the levy. When the levy of id per lb on butter-fat was imposed these factories had two alternatives: (1) To declare their monthly payment of 18d as before, but to deduct from each supplier individually the proportion of the levy due by him; (2) to decrease their payment to Is sid net to the supplier. The trouble has arisen because some companies took neither of these alternatives. They continued to pay the same figure as before, and made no deduction from their suppliers individually, so that the levy became an additional charge on their working expenses.

“This company has all along made each supplier contribute his portion of the lew Any refund we have received from the Government for New Zealand sales has been ear-marked and handed back to the suppliers in proportion to the butter-fat received from them. We enclose copy of a suppliers’ account, which i. akes this clear. By this method our suppliers know exactly at the end of the season how much they,.have contributed under the levy, and what proportion they have received back from the Government. We have found this method to work with complete satisfaction, a;'.d we have heard practically no complaints from our 120 suppliers. They are content, because they- see month by month that each man is contributing his just quota.-" Dominion. ”