THE DAIRY BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 June 1923, Page 8

THE DAIRY BILL.

A MUCH-TANGLED SKEIN. Mr. E. Maxwell (Opunake) again takes up his lance— Sir, —Again this year, as last year, the Control Clique seem to have an extraordinary knack of failing to make the statements of any one exponent agree with those of any other or to make them coincide with fact. The following are a few intresting samples of both kinds of failings : Mr. Morton, at Stratford meeting: “There would be no trouble about finance. . . .He believed that the Control Board would forward the produce to Tooley Street, and Tooley Street would put up letters of credit in favor of the Control Board.” Mr. Grounds at Leeston: “It never had been said that the finance was to be arranged by letters of credit set up by the London merchants.” Mr. Morton at Stratford indignantly denied any knowledge of, and Mr. Brash flatly denied, that any assurance had been given Sir Thomas Clement that it was not the intention of the Council to interfere with the marketing. The fact is that Sir Thomas was given such assurance. Mr. O. W. Williams in the Dominion says: “Without interfering in any way with the present trade channels. . . . Things will simply be carried on as in the past.” Mr. Grounds at Hamilton said: “It would not be compatible with the principles of control to permit a factory to consign on its own account no matter how good an offer it had.” Mr. Grounds at New Plymouth last October: “Prices must be arranged with the selling agents in London.” Mr. Corrigan at Hawera: “He was certain if they could concentrate in the English market thejt would save the £lOO,OOO a year they now paid the local agents.”

Mr. Morton at Stratford said that nine members of the board would be elected by the producers. The true position is that under the Council’s scheme the nine members will be nominees of the Council, and the present Council, who were elected at a rush meeting by a small minority of the factories, are to be the nominators. Mr. Hawken, M.P., at .Stratford, volunteered the following explanation for the reserve fund: “It was to pay bonuses out of.” The fact is that the reserve, in any case, is clearly barred from such a use by the preceding sub-section. Mr. Grounds at Hamilton pointed out that “the Bill specifically set out that compulsion would be limited or absolute according to the will of the suppliers.” This is contrary to fact, and whether Mr. Grounds is reported correctly or not it is disgraceful that such a statement should go forth and gather support for the Bill. The facts are that instead of the Bill setting forth specfieally anything of the sort, it specifically gives absolute power to the Board on regulation approved by the Gov-ernor-General to do what it likes to any extent. The present Council, which does not represent the producers as a whole, is deliberately providing that they shall appoint the first Board, and that Board can assume absolute control for shipping and marketing. Mr. Grounds says: “The Danes . . .

had faith in their power to appoint a trdbtworthy Board of Control.” Just what Mr. Grounds means by this I do no't know, but he knows or ought to know that the Danes have no such thing as compulsion or any Board of Control as understood as such here. This has been made clear beyond question and it is not right that incorrect statements should be repeated. These quoted are but a few instances of

the tangle of contradictions and erroneous statements, but surely they are sufficient to show that the Control Clique have never given the matters they are dealing with any reasonable thought, and so must, have relied on the producers accepting, without question, any wild generalities. Are the producers going to allow the source of their livelihood, and are the people of this Dominion going to allow their most wealth-producing industry, to be placed under the arbitrary and absolute control of inexperienced amateurs?

A SOCIALISTIC EXPERIMENT. HOLLAND OUTDONE. Writes R- J. Bakewell (Waitui) : Sir, —As this proposed Pool Bill is virtually a nationalisation, wholly or in part of the means of distribution, I should like to ask why has the passage of the Bill through the House not been entrusted to Mr. Holland? As I understand him, this gentleman has ever, in season and out, advocated the principle of the socialisation of all industry, both as to the production and distribution. He is too wise and practicdl a man to refuse this first instalment of his loaf. Were the Leader of the Labor Party in charge of the Bill, the political atmosphere would be at once cleared. Electors would see then where they were. Two parties would at once appear, each with a clearly defined policy, one for and the other against SocialismThen, too, this being a democratic state, the electors will have the right to demand that a vote by the whole body of citizens, be taken of so far-reaching and revolutionary change in our political and social organisation. Lastly we should be spared the sorry spectacle of one chosen to run with the hare, leading on the hounds.

That the dairying industry of all should be chosen for such a socialistic experiment is the most amazing part of the whole business. Dairying, more than any other industry, owes its success to the initiative, the enterprise, thrift, energy, and tireless work of those engaged in it. Its success is owing, less than any, to State aid. Unlike our bolstered secondary industries, it can sell at a profit in the overseas market its manufactured products, butter and cheese; it has risen, to the premier position among our industries, gives employment and independence to more people than any other in the country; and lastly, in the days of slump, it proved the salvation, economic and financial, of the community. Secondary industries have been bolstered by a protective tariff for half a century. During that time they have been a grievous burden upon all, the primary producer in particular. They are for ever clamoring for a closer preserve of their Home market. Yet to-day they cannot Fell a single article overseas at a profit. If there is any justification for State control of the sale and distribution of products, the experiment of State Socialism should- first be tried with those industries which have been in receipt of State aid for more than fifty years, and have utterly failed to become established on a sound economic foundation. Stripped of the frippery with which it f has been decked by the pettyfogging ati torney’s clerk, the real intent of this Pool Bill is forcibly to take from the hands of I the small fanner the ju# reward of hie

labor. The product, thus arbitrarily taken, amounting in value to some twenty millions annually, is to be given to an irresponsible body of placemen to have and to hold, to speculate with at their own sweet will in the overseas market. There may be gain; there will be losses, but first and always shall be the profits of their places. A more impudent, direct, and instant scheme of class spoliation has never before been dragged into the sphere of practical politics; nay, it is plunder of a section of a class, and that the most hard-working and deserving of the whole, the dairy farmer. No Red Fed orator at a corner of Devon Street would dream of bringing so illconsidered, unjust, and partial a scheme of Socialism into the glare of the electric lamp. Undoubtedly dairying is subject to the ills human affairs are heirs to, and hence these promoters with their nostrum to cure us of all. They are worse than quacks. From the sanctimonious unction with which they press for trust in their powers, the unholy yearning they exhibit to lay their itching palfns upon the produce which is still ours and not theirs, we must class them as faith healers. The feeble minded are an easy prey to such, but not so the sound and free, hopefully and gladly busy forging fate for themselves. These will treat with proper contempt the promoters’ cunning and insidious attacks upon the rights and property of free citizens.

Of course compulsion is necessary to the success of the scheme. Free men could take or reject the nostrum, costing twenty millions annually, as they were wise or foolish. Control would surely grow, from shipping produce to sales, and so to profits—“Facilis descensus Averno,” until the farmer had been reduced to the hopeless state of a departmental serf, and, depend upon it, the department is behind these promoters of the Pool, who are playing their part of forwards.

So would the dream of the Alliance of Labor be realised, and of the consideration we are likely to get from the promoters of this Bill once it becomes law we have a fair sample in the conference summoned for Friday next. Three weeks before, the Stratford conference, by a majority of more than two to one, decided to adjourn for a month. Now it suits the promoters to ignore this resolution and call the delegates together sooner. If thus in the green tree, what will be, when, upaslike, it is established in the places of the mighty? I have only to add that for years past we have known many of these men, promoting this precious Pool- For the qualifications to manage a monster socialistic enterprise, we have only to look the Dominion over to see dotted everywhere dismal wreck of undertakings, due to their bungling business methods. Finally, let me remind the Government of what befel the Ward Administration through its Dairy Bill of 1908. This Government got a warning last December. Will it repeat the blunder then made, and again play into the hands of Holland and Co.? FACTORIES OPPOSED. At a representative meeting of the shareholders of the Maketaw? Dairy Co., Ltd., last night a resolution in favor of th* Dairy Control Bill was rejected. The

company’s representatives at the meeting to be held at Stratford to-day were instructed to oppose the Bill. At a meeting of the Lepperton Dairy Co.’s shareholders on Wednesday night, it was unanimously decided to vote against the proposed Bill. Suppliers of the Newall Dairy Company and of the Warea Dairy Company unanimously voted against the Bill.