DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Shannon News, 15 June 1923, Page 3

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

i EIGHT FACTORIES AFFIRM PRINJ CIPLE. ALL-DAY MEETING IN LEVIN. A meeting of the Wellington Manuwatu dairy factories, convened by the Wellington-West Coast Dairy Association, .was Field in the Century Hall, Levin, on Monday, to discuss the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill. Mr S. A. Broadhelt, chairman of the Levin Co-operative Dairy Go., was in the chair and representatives were present from the Paraparauinu, Te Horo, Kuku, Levin, Shannon, Rangiotu, Glen Oroua and Oroua Downs factories. An apology for non-attendance way received from the chairman of the Awahuri Daily Go. The chairman, in opening the meeting, expressed his pleasure at seeing so many factories represented. The matter before the meeting wa,s one of vital importance to dairymen, and as it was to come up at the annual conference of the National Dairy Association at Palmerston North next week it had been thought advisable to have a meeting of the , factories along the Coast to discuys the matter. He moved the following resolution: “That this large and representative meeting of dairy farmers representing a large number of factories of this district, fully endorses the principle of Dairy Produce Control, as set forth in the Dairy Control Bill. 1 ’ The time had come, he said, to do something on behalf of the dairying industry: at present they put their produce on board the boat in New Zea-

land and l'roin that on had no further control of it. They knew that there was a lot of speculation in their produce and lie thought this could be overcome to a large extent by control. Shipping was unsatisfactory, and resulted in supplies arriving irregularly with consequent over-supply at times, and this should be regulated. The Danes owed their prominence to ai great extent to the regular supplies they could maintain and the New Zealand producer should aim at a similar result. Out of the 186,000 tons fcf dairy produce imported into England annually, 94,600 tons was supplied by the colonies which gave them a very strong position. How long this would last was another thing. In the not distant future Siberia would be a. factor in the situation, whilst the Argentine was. also ,an ever-growing competitor, as was South Africa.

The New Zealand Dairy Association had 'unanimously supported the principle of control, a& had also the Farmers’ Union Executive. Mr Ellison, representing the National Dairy Associa-

tion in London had written advocating united effort to control produce in London and advertise it, and said that if this could be done it would effect more for the industry than all other methods combined. He formally moved the resolution.

Some discussion arose at this point. Mr Evelyn. McDonald (Te Horo) contending that ai motion proposed hy him at last meeting of the WellingtonWest Coast Dairy Association that, whilst the principle of control was approved of, the Bill be referred back to Committee for amendment, should be the subject for discussion, it being eventually decided to proceed with the motion as moved.

Mr Pacey (manager of the Palmerston North branch of Nathan and Co.), who was present by invitation, to explain the views of the opposition to the Bill, said that the meeting was convened to affirm or otherwise, the principle of control. It was futile to do this, however, without knowing the principles of the Bill. The chairman said that it was quite in order to affirm the principles of control. If after that, •some portions of the Bill did not. meet wit/h the approval of the meeting, they could go into the Bill and consider these.

Mr Pacey ; Can the meeting hear Mi McDonald’s motion ? Chairman: I do not think that it if necessary. It. is only a waste of time to get away from.ihe subject, in thi? way. However, it will not do any harm..

Mr McDonaild then read his motion. Mr ,T. D. Brown seconded the motion proposed by the chairman. They must not expect, he said that the Control Bill was going to be a cure-all for all the evils the dairying industry was subject to. Up to the time of shipping, the dairy industry was wtil organised, but as long as they alhwed control to go out of their handonce the produce wa s shipped, there was a very weak link in the organisation. As for the details of the Bill these were for experts, not farmers, io deal with, but they could, and lid, realise the necessity for action. The weakest ,:nk in any farmers’ orga-.lsati u wn the farmer himself. A great many meetings of farmers had been held and resolutions carried for control. Other meetings .had been held and resolutions carried against control. Lately there had been an increase in i the demand for effective control from all sources. He had great pleasure in supporting the motion. Mr C. I. Harkness a l s o supported the motion. There seemed something wrong in the fact after all the trouble taken to get the factories out. of the hands of proprietary organisations and establish them. on a co-operative basis, they should then hand their produce back to the proprietors for distribution. There was no question that the companies should have' the control of the sale of their own produce. The principle of the Bill was right and he was only sorry that it

had not gone through at first. Mr E. McDonald moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back for alteration to some clauses. He considered that the provisions of this Bill were too important to be lightly gone into. It was one of the most important things that had ever come before the dairymen of this country, and he did not think it was a wise policy to support, it in its present vague form. The Bill as it stood had “Government control” written all over it, whereas it should be farmers’ control, and that only. No 1 one knew exactly what was proposed 1 . Everybodv was more or less in the dark and they should find out exactly what- was proposed before blindly supporting the Bill. He objected strenuously to the idea of act-

ing blindly as was being proposed to do, but would content himself at present with formally moving his amendment. The chairman said they appeared to be getting away from the point. He did not think there were many men m the room who were opposed t-o the principle of control, it this were affirmed they could then consider the machinery of the Bill.

Mr Pacey said there was no good affirming the principles of control unless they got down to a definition of what was meant. These vague motions had been affirmed all over the country, but got no. one any further. It seemed a curious thing to affirm a Bill and then discuss the provisions of such a Bill. It would be better to go through it first and decide definitely as to their position, then affirm it or otherwise. The chairman said that the motion before the meeting was to discuss the matter of affirming the principle of control. After that a further motion could be moved that the Bill be gone into.

Mr Pacey contended that, if this motion were carried it meant that they formally asked the Government to put the provisions of the Bill into operation. That was not what the meeting desired. He recognised that he was only present on sufferance, being there as the result of an invitation he had received when attending a meeting of t,ha Wellington-West 'Coast Dairy Association to attend and address the meeting on this subject, but being here he must express his views. It seemed to him that if the present motion went through there was no further question before the meeting. '

The chairman agreed with the consent of the seconder to alter his motion to read: “That the meeting approved of the principle of control." This was put and carried unanimously. At the invitation of the chairman, Mr Pacey addressed the meeting from the platform in opposition to the Bill, which he contended was only bringing back the system of control found so galling during the war and which everybody was glad to see the last of. Further he contended that -the cost of administration of what even its supporters could not but admit was a clumsy machine for marketing, would be so heavy as to eat up any profits which might be made under the scheme. One of the big argments put up by supporters of the Bill was that it would do for butter what the Meat Control Bill had done for meat, but i. was an open question if the Meal control Bill had done anything for meat. Mutton and lamb had certainly gone up, but that was merely as the re=ui> of a general shortage. If it was the work of the Meat Board, why had tiny not done the same for beeiV iu mmind the main trouble was the unsatisfactory shipping. There were ten ports of loading m New Zealand and a consequent waste of time resulting in irregular supplies. Remedy tins, u possible, but he strongly advised tne meeting no.t to rashly adopt a system of control which only absolute necessity could justify, and which nothing in the present situation warrantee. He.moved a motion, which he explained had been adopted as a resolution at a meeting of a dairy company m Auckland twelve months previously, to the effect “That the Government oe urged to appoint an experienced and representative commission to visit Bn;ain, Canada, Denmark and elsewhere to thoroughly investigate the conditions of transportation and marketing of dairy produce, such commission iu report to the Government what alterations should be made in the present system of marketing. That such commission should include two persons intimately associated with the dairying industry one of whom favours me Control Bill, and one who oppose* such Bill, also an independent enairman who has had large experience m New Zealand financial and commercia, circles. Pending report and recommendations of such commission, Pm iiament be asked to defer legislation. When this had been done, he contended there would be something definite to go on, but to saddle tnem selves "with ill-considered legislali m. which before long they might w:». ihemselves well rid of was not a wist policy. Mr Brown had mentioned the opposition which the Bill had recei/eo irom farmers, and had spoken o. this as the weakness in the farmers ranks, it was rather a strength am showed that farmers had the aoiiuy tc think for themselves.. Let them ge mto the matter thoroughly, and 1. Uiey loumi on investigation that Hit Bill was worthy of support it worn ne time enough to go on with it. Mr J. D. Brown briefly spoke in opposition to this motion.

Mr E. McDonald seconded the mo tion, an adjournment being then made for lunch.

On tlhe resumption of the .meeting after considerable discussion, M. Hart-ham (Pa<raparaumu) moved an amendment, which Mr H. A. Roiston (Levin) seconded, that the meeting go further than its original resolut on, and affirm the principle of control m~ embodied in the Dairy Control Bit There might be things in the BL which were not all they might be, bu. they would -have capable men at the J head of affairs when the organising o. J the scheme was being effected ami j they could be relied on to right these, j Several other speakers supporte j this view. i Mr Pacey entered a strong prutesagainst what would amount if the Bill were carried, to coercion of those concerns which opposed the scheme. Coercion was absolutely unjustifiable. If the principle of the Bill was sound it could be .worked out as co-operation had been in New Zealand. Let it be a voluntary effort on the part of tlio;e who supported it, and is successful the others would be only too glad to join i 11,.: The chairman said there would have to -be a certain amount of confidence in those who were running the Bill. He understood that .the proprietary concerns and merchants had formed an association to fight any move ‘such as the present. These people must- have discovered a great interest in the welfare of the farmer all of a sudden. His opinion was that it was not that, they desired to save the farmer from himself, but for themselves. Mr Pacey opposed what he called a rather unfair remark on th part of

u.e chairman. He understood that an organisation (had been formed but it was as the result of the cooperative companies insisting on treating the proprietary organisations as enemies, that this was done. He was acting in a dual capacity himself—as a- representative of a co-operative concern and also as a representative of Nathan and Co. He made no apology for his connection with a proprietary company, but this association Mr Broadbelt spoke of was merely formed t:> protect their own interests against the enmity of the co-operative organisations. He considered that these were making a great .mistake in their attitude. If they were to fry honestly to - come to some understanding wherpbv *bev could work in harmony for the betterment of the industry, more wool I be accomplished. The amendment was put and carried and the amendment becoming the motion Mr Pacey moved an amendment 'hat. the meeting expressed approval of the principle of control but opposition to many of the provisions of the Bib. Mr E. J. Beard (Bangiotu) seconded the amendment which was lost. The motion that the meeting affirm the Bill as brought forward was then carried, the meeting concluding with a hearty vote of thanks to the chair. It had commenced at. 11 o’clock and continued till 4 p.m.