DAIRY PRODUCERS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5945, 19 May 1944, Page 4

DAIRY PRODUCERS

ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED NGARUA FARMERS’ VIEWS Whether the existence of the recently formed Dairy Producers* Association was justified in view of the fact that other dairy organisations had already been functioning for some time was keenly debated at a largely attended meeting of producers at Ngarua. Sharp differences of opinion were expressed and there were occasional heated exchanges between speakers supporting the Association and its opponents. After lengthy discussion the meeting passed a resolution by 38 votes to 18 giving its approval of the Association and pledging support for the new body. The following resolution, on which the chairman, Mr N. Anderson, ruled that only farmers resident in Ngarua could vote, was moved by Mr A. Hayward, seconded by Mr W. Scott, defeated by 16 votes to 12: “this meeting is of the opinion that the setting up of a further organisation, such as the Dairy Producers’ Association, is inimical to the interests of the dairy farmers, but considers that the setting up of a dairy farmers’ section within the structure of the 1’ armors Union would be desirable, such section to keep in close touch through its branches with dairy directors and to have the right to nominate two representatives of the Dairy Industry Council.” The meeting, which was called by the Dairy Producers’ Association, was addressed by four members of the Association, the chairman later allowing Mr R. A. Candy, of Ngarua, to speak for twenty minutes in reply. The formation of the Association was outlined by’ Mr R. Mclntyre, of Kereone, who explained its objects. After discussion by branches, he said, it was unanimously decided that the Association could not agree to the commodity councils scheme of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, and the Association had decided to further its own organisation. There had been an astounding response from the farming community, and many new branches had been formed. The movement had spread far afield and had already become consolidated in the Bay of' Plenty area, and recently members of the Association had been invited to organise the m|wement in the Manawatu district. The Association had reached a stage in its progress where it wished to place its organisation on a proper basis and to appoint officers. The Association had applied for membership of the Farmers’ Federation, for at' recent massed meetings of farmers there had been a unanimous wish for a federation to represent all farmers. The Association was not trying to cripple the Farmers’ Union or the dairy industry.” Farmers could not shirk the tact that the position to-day was serious, said Mr Friis, of Tauranga. Ranged against the farmers, he said, were sections of the community that wer e welded together in strong bands. It was entirely the fault of the farmers, for they had always acted as individualists. Mr A. Hayward had said that the dairy industry had never accepted the new price, but no demand had been made on the Government, which knew that there was nobody representing the farmers strong enough to back up any demand. ' The Farmers’ Union represented farmers only to a point. While every ' farmer would agree that the present system of hospital rating was iniquitous, the Union’s present campaign to abolish hospital rating was only an attempt to put the responsibility of breaking the law on individual county councillors. The Government knew it coulo handle the farmers, but not other sections of the community, said Mr P Maloney, of Tauranga. Referring to the recent price negotiations in Wellington, the speaker asked how could Mr W. Marshall, who was a member of the Stabilisation Committee, line up his conscience with his position. Farmers to-day had merely become the chopping- block of party polities. The farming community should assert itself and organise on a proper basis. . Ml- 11. M. Corbett, of Te Aroha, said the dairy farmers of New Zealand : had no direct approach to the Govern- ! ment. In the price negotiations at Wellington the Dairy Industry Council had recommended an increase of 1.99 d, which had been discussed with tile stabilisation Commission and reduced to 1.47 d. How the pt-ice was reduced from 1.47 d to 1.21 d was veiled in secrecy. Rising to a point of order, Mr A. Hayward said that at a meeting at Waitoa he had said that the Dairy Industry Council had never agreed to a price increase of 1.21 d. He denmed that he had said that the Council had compromised in the figure of 1.21 d, , “ What can the Dairy .Producers Association do that the , present organisation cannot do ?’’ asked Mr R. A. Candy. Could it gain the same reliable information in regard to costs as the dairy companies ? Mr Candy outlined the events leaning to the formation of the present dairy industry’s organisations, commencing with the inauguration of cooperative dairy companies. In 1925 the Dairy Board had been set up to carry out negotiations with the Government, and it was worth remembering that the present Government had taken over the marketing system which had been drawn up by the industry itself. In 1938 the industry had demanded that under the guaranteed price producers should have representatives of their own equal in number with Government representatives and with an independent chairman on a committee, not to fix a price, but to recommend a price that it considered adequate. That committee had made a unanimous recommendation of 2.33 d increase, and it had been lauded throughout the country. Shortly after the outbreak of the war the industry’s representatives had stated that a penny a pound increase was needed.

After dealing further with what the present dairy industry’s organisations had done on behalf of the indus-

try, Mr Candy said that all the Dairy Producers’ Association would do was to add to the multiplicity of organisations, and that woud merely be playing into the hands of the Government.

“ Would Mr Candy prefer 1.99 d or 1.21 d as an increase ? ” asked Mr Mclntyre.

Mr Candy replied that he was one of those who had recommended 1.99 d as a fair increase.

In answer to another question Mr Candy said that the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company was not satisfied with the price increase of 1.21 d.

Mr Friis said Mr Candy had told them nothing. The Dairy Producers’ Association did not seek to discredit the various dairy organisations in existence. It had to be remembered that ail the statistical data belonged to the dairy farmers. After many more questions had asked and answered the resolutions were then put to the meeting.