DAIRY PRODUCE

Southland Times, Issue 19511, 10 May 1922, Page 6

DAIRY PRODUCE

< THE PROPOSED POOL, WAIKATO SUPPORT. M'Per United Press Association.) HAMILTON, May 9. A meeting of the South Auckland Dairy Association executive agreed to recommend all associated companies to support the suggested pool as being best in the interests of producers. It was also decided that advance payments for butter-fat supplied during April be a shilling for cheese and first grade butter and tenpence for second grade butter. REPLY TO THE GROCER BRITISH PAPER’S STATEMENTS CRITICISED The recent cable message from London, giving the opinions of “The Grocer” on the proposed pool of New Zealand’s dairy produce, has come under the notice of Mr T. C. Brash, secretary of the National Dairy Association, who states that “The Grocer’s” comments, based on inadequate or inaccurate information, have seriously misrepresented the pooling proposal. Mr Brash gives the following reply to the various assertions of “The Grocer”: — In the first place, it is necessary to explain that “The Grocer’s” advertising interests are largely identified with the proprietory trading concerns in the present system of marketing, which has been proved very unsatisfactory to New Zealand producers and consequently to New Zealand’s people in the mass. “The Grocer” has always been opposed to any co-operative action on the part of either producers or consumers. “The Grocer” as a paper which depends largely for its present financial position on a certain kind of trading, is opposed to any marketing reform which, it fears, may effect its business. “The Grocer's” inaccurracies on the pool question are as follows: Inaccuracy No. I:—“New Zealand’s suggester compulsory dairy produce pool does not commend itself to the trade in the United Kingdom.” The position to-day is that cable messages have been received from some of the principal consignment houses in London, stating that they will support the proposed pool of dairy produce. The opposition is mainly from the speculative concerns. Inaccuracy No. 2: —“All healthy rivalry I and competition would be eliminated.” The truth is that under the proposed pool the only competition that would be eliminated would be the competition downward, the panicky sacrifice of stocks and the smashing of market by unsteady dealers. A reasonable limit of price—fair alike to the producer and the consumer would be set, and there would be scope for competition upward, in accordance with the ordinary laws of supply and demand. Inaccuracy No. 3: —“Any pool of this kind would be resented by the British Distributing Trade.” The truth is that the pool would not interfere with the legitimate distributing trade in the British market. There will be no cause for resentment except among mere speculators whose schemes have been injurious to New Zealand.

Inaccuracy No. 4: —“Any pool of this I kind would result in the sacrifice of the I good-will of New Zealand produce.” The truth is that at present New Zealand dairy produce has no good-will in Great Britain, because the consumers have practically no knowledge of the Dominion’s dairy produce as New Zealand produce. One of the main purposes is to give New Zealand dairy produce its own high place, under its own name on the British market. For this purpose there would be adequate, intelligent advertising. The pool would enable the advertising to be done on a national scale, which has not been possible up to the present. Inaccuracy No. s:—“The pubilc would consider the pool a replica of the American Beef Trust.” This allegation is so fantastic that it scarcely needs serious notice. However, overwhelming proof is available to show that there is not the slightest resemblance between beef trust and ths proposed pool. Inaccuracy No. 6: —“The pool is practically a second edition of Government control and the grocery trade has had enough of this kind of thing.” tl is a well known fact that the trade would welcome Government control if it could be assured of such profits as were made in the past under the same control. Still fresh in memory is the effort made by merchants in London—at the close of the

period of Government control—to obtain a charter by which that kind of control (assuring a certain measure of profit) would be practically perpetuated. Briefly, the case for the pool is simply a case of justice for New Zealand’s producers and New Zealand’s people. The Dominion’s dairy produce has been used as a pawn in the game of speculative “big business” in London to the detriment of New Zealand.