DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Southland Times, Issue 19502, 17 March 1925, Page 4

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

To the Editor. Sir.—l see that the Executive of the Associated Chamber of Commerce in Wellington has “pressed the button” and the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country are automatically and obediently responding with resolutions of concern and alarm at the desire of the dairy farmers of the country to exercise collective power in the marketing of their produce. Such, Joo, is the wonderful grip of business principles possessed by these Chambers that they require no time in which to consider details of that which has been proposed by the dairy farmers as a result of cautious enquiry throughout the world over nine months and years of previous investigation. The S.O.S. is issued by those whose profits are derived from handling dairy produce, and who imagine that under a more efficient and controlled system their earnings will diminish or disappear. Immediately, with clannish loyalty each puppet chamber pops up and says its little piece breathing apoplectic distress at the very “ideah” of farmers desiring to put the marketing of their produce on a more businesslike basis. At one meeting in a northern centre some members had the candour to explain that they did not know anything about the pro-'

position and thought they ought to study it, but still a resolution antagonistic to alleged “Bolshevism” was passed. Sir, does the Chamber of Commerce think it adds to its dignity or usefulness by such gross misrepresentation? The result of this and former activities by the Chamber is that now farmers take the rough and ready view that anything the Chambers are against must be for the benefit of farmers. That is so in this case. This movement on the part of dairy farmers is an effort to improve the marketing of their produce; to adopt those practices of scientific business which have demonstrated that producers whose interests are identical will secure the best results, not by competition amongst themselves, but by a unified marketing policy, enabling them collectively to (1) Advertise New Zealand goods, as New Zealand; (2) Deliver to market regularised quantities, avoiding gluts and surplusses; (3) Develop new markets with adequate supplies; and (4) So arrange the chain of distribution between the producer and the consumer that speculation and undue profits by middlemen are avoided, but that the genuine services of well ordered distributors are utilised to best advantage. These aims are national aims, calculated to benefit New Zealand as a whole. The more money the New Zealand producer gets, the greater will be the individual profits of the members of the Chambers of Commerce. As it is, they get the farmer’s returns first, last and all the .time. The more money the farmer earns the greater is our national prosperity. In this particular instance if the business men concerned would consent to take a broad view of things they would help the dairy farmers improve the national revenue by improving the national marketing service. Instead they are being misled by a few interested parties such as agents whose consciences inform them they may be unnecessary, and .speculators who desire to profiteer in foodstuffs. The private machinations of these two classes are preventing the Chambers of Commerce from giving this movement of the dairy farmers its due scope as an honest and commendable effort to improve the status and value of one of New Zealand’s main industries. The value of the dairy industry will be increased as years go by, and in the process of national welfare will be definitely promoted. The Chambers of Commerce, with their vision narrowed by private interests, are simply being used for propaganda purposes by interested dairy agents. If any audience of unbiased business men cared to investigate the case for the dairy farmers, and the measure of control proposed by them, they would unhesitatingly commend it as a sound sane, commonsense and practical proposition, the principles of which they, in their own business, are using every day. What business manufacturer would pursue the unorganised marketing methods at present indulged in by dairy farmers? Imagine shipping £20,000,000 worth of mustard, boots, chocolates, sandsoap, or any other standardised article to a market without discrimination as to quantity, time, or regard for prospective price—simply permitting the agent and the speculator to usurp the rightful place of the owner of the produce in decisions of sale and value. This is not an undue picture of the present position. The dairy farmers at long last recognise the idiocy of the procedure, and desire to effect an improvement. But the Associated Chamber of Commerce says it is “Bolshevism” holds up its hands in high horror to Heaven, and S.O.S’s its subservient bodies throughout the country. The farmers understand the game. Against the business policy of the proposal there is no argument. The only refuge of opponents is to sow the seeds of suspicion and unworthy innuendo. Against such tactics of commercial domination the farmers, in my opinion, will be driven to combine. Perhaps the newly organised “Country Party” will provide the best avenue for securing justice and fair treatment. —I am, etc. DAIRY FARMER.