CONTROL BOARD BREACH

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1926, Page 11

CONTROL BOARD BREACH

DIVISION OVER POLICY REVELATIONS BY A MEMBER. OPPOSITION TO PRICE FIXING. CABLEGRAMS FROM LONDON. Invercargill, Nov. 1. A member of the Dairy Produce Board, Mr. T. M. Timpany, of Southland, one of the producers’ representatives on the board, in an interview regarding the recent decision concerning the board’s price policy discloses the text of telegrams from London bearing on the matter. He says he opposed price fixation, but Mr. J. R. Corrigan, of Taranaki, another producers’ representative, tabled a notice of motion bearing on the subject, and he waited. A statement appeared in the press after the previous meeting of the board suggesting that Mr. W. Grounds, chairman of the board, and Mr. W. A. lorns, of Pahiatua, were opposed to each other, but no reference was made to Mr. Stronach Paterson, the other member of the London agency, who supported Mr. lorns in demanding a change and the removal of Mr. J. B. Wright, the London manager of the board. Mr. lorns cabled on October 4 as follows: “Fixing the minimum price and ■ retaining the present management has already resulted in some boycotting of New Zealand produce. If persisted it will, in my opinion, result in disaster. If this is the board’s policy I request the board’s cabled consent to my returning to New Zealand immediately. If board adopts Australian price-control system, accepts Mr. Wright’s resignation, and replaces him with better man who easily obtainable am confident position ean still be retrieved and control policy successfully applied for benefit of producers, and I am willing to remain here and work to this end. Please reply promptly.— W. A. lorns.” RE-ESTABLISHING CONFIDENCE. The next day, Mr. Grounds expressed his opinion in the following message: — “London, October 15, 1926:—Most practical course present difficulty recall Mr. lorns, make Mr. W. Claud Motion chairman London agency. Leave London agency reconstruction until Mr. W. D. Hunt returns and Mr. Grainger and myself report. Mr. lorns indicated opinion by cable.” Then following on this message from Mr. Grounds came the following from Mr. Paterson, who is the Government representative on the London agency: —- “Tn case board would like my views on the position they are as follows: I concur in Mr. lorns’ views. First necessity is change of manager and abandonment minimum price fixing in favour of Australian system of price control. I concur in Mr. Grounds’ view reorganisation London agency desirable, but do not agree his immediate proposals to that end, feeling they would identify the board’s control policy even more closely than hitherto with the past policy of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company. These methods would result in accentuating present acute hostility throughout the whole trade.” Nothing further was heard by the board and the position when the board met a few days ago was unchanged, except perhaps that the difficulties were a little more acute. Mr. Corrigan’s motion had been altered, following a conference between two members of the board and the Minister of Agriculture, and it was adopted, though not unanimously, as the newspaper account stated. The decision changed the name of price fixation, but in the essentials left the policy unchanged, and ignored the cabled warnings of Messrs lorns and Paterson. At that time it was known that a cable from the Prime Minister was on its way and the text was hurried over to the meeting, reaching there just before the luncheon adjournment. That cable, dated London, October 27, said: — TEXT OF MR. COATES’ MESSAGE. “Influential deputation representative importers, blenders, multiple shops, wholesale provision merchants and retailers has made very strong representations to me, firstly, objecting to control, secondly, protesting against pricefixing, thirdly, objecting to the present manager London agency. Regarding firstly I told them that control policy definitely settled and would continue. They recognised this position and state they desire to continue work in interests of New Zealand dairy trade at this end and accepted my statements. Regarding secondly I am convinced strongly it would be a great mistake to attempt anything in the nature of minimum price-fixing and in view of serious position any method at this juncture likely to engender antagonism should be avoided. Regarding thirdly very strong objection expressed to Wright, in whom trade apparently have no confidence, and this attitude very detrimental interests of New Zealand producers. Matter has been discussed with Grounds, who is meeting same people to-day. Paterson's telegram to board in my opinion correctly represents feeling majority of trade here. Give copy this telegram to Hawken. Matter most urgent. Board meets October 27, Wellington.” “STRANGEST PART OF BUSINESS.” “Now comes the strangest part of the business,” said Mr. Timpany, in referring to the cables from London. “Mr. Coates sends a message from London on October 27 and it reaches Wellington on October 28. Mr. Paterson, of the London agency, sends a cable on October 23, after having shown it, or a copy, to Mr. Coates. Yet Mr. Paterson's message only reaches New Zealand on October 28, the day after the board meeting. Mr. Paterson's cable says: “Cannot urge too strongly that to avoid disaster board should abandon minimum price-fixing and adopt Australian system price control. All allottees with exception only of Lovells and Wilson Sears, have this week officially in writing strongly represented to agency that owing to keen hostility of all branches trade throughout country price fixation would be detrimental best interests producers. Strongly urge also board should dispense with present manager. who completely lacks confidence of trade and in my opinion can never seC nre trade’s goodwill and co-operation. V, right has repeatedly stated Australian gysteih price control both useless and unworkable. If. therefore, hoard adopts this system all the more essential change

manager. Eminently suitable man of great experience and highest standing in trade is prepared negotiate for position if, and when, it becomes vacant, but declines allow his name disclosed unless and until board creates vacancy. In any case anticipate no difficulty replacing Wright with more suitable man. Think reorganising London agency not urgent and can wait Grounds’ return in the meantime. If board by adoption course above suggested lays foundation essential for re-establishing goodwill and confidence present agency with suitable new manager ean get business working smoothly. . . Whatever the cost believe change manager essential. Above message is sent with cognisance of Prime Minister, who requests you to hand copy immediately to Acting-Prime Minister.” “Now,” said Mr. Timpany, “the position is just this. We have antagonised the trade in London and they are retaliating by boycotting butter and reducing advances on both butter and cheese. I moved to get an increased advance on cheese and was informed that it was out of the board’s control, because the amount of advances available depended upon the merchants handling our produce. If the market was open to-day our eheese would sell at round about 8d per lb, f.0.b., yet all that is being advanced against shipments is 5Jd, which dairy farmers know only too well will result in disaster. Of course the board promised to consider my request for an increase in the advances in cheese, but there is the position wholly in the hands of the merchants.” Mr. Timpany has given notice to reopen the question in the light of these cablegrams and consider Mr. M right’s position as manager. MINISTER INTERVIEWED. Auckland, Last Night. “I do not care to make any comment,” said the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. 0. J. Hawken, when the report issued by Mr. T. M. Timpany concerning cablegrams received from the Prime Minister and others respecting the policy of the Dairy Produce Board was referred to him. “It does, however, appear to me to be a pity that the affairs of the board should be made public in such a manner,” continued the Minister. “If a statement is to be made one would think that it should be made by the chairman of th> bear'd and not by a member after the meeting is over. That is just my view on the subject generally, for I do not know the circumstances that have led Mr. Timpany to take the action he has.” The Minister said the Government did not interfere with the work of the board. The control Act had been passed by Parliament and the board had been established, and it was now its business to carry on the work for which it had been created. The board was a business concern and it must conduct its business along accepted lines. He agreed that there might be something in the suggestion that its policy and work might probably have been more clearly understood if fuller information were given at the time of the the board’s meetings. During the period he had been a member of the board there had been very little that could not have been made public and the meetings of the board could quite easily have been open to the Press. Of course, there were matters that it would not be in the interests of all concerned to broadcast, but these could have been taken in committee. The Hon. Hawken said he was not disposed to view very seriously the present slump in prices for New Zealand dairy produce, nor was he inclined to be pessimistic concerning the future of the industry. We had had many elumps in butter. “This slump,” he said, “has been caused by some factories holding over their produce, and in the aggregate there has been too much butter held over, How much is now in etore or how much is being sold from week to week? Under the board this could not have happened. The board would know to a box how much butter was on the market and how much was coming forward. It would have accurate statistical information, which is more than the industrylias had in the past. “All this talk about price fixing and rigging the market Is nonsense,” the Minister continued. “There was never any suggestion of it when I was on the board and there has been no departure, so far as I am aware, from that policy. The board knows that it has to sell each season’s produce, and with information at its disposal concerning sales that are being made and the amount of produce that is available or coming forward, it will know what price to ask. If that price is not obtained it will have to create the market, either by reducing the price a little or by improving the demand by advertising. The point is that it must sell during the proper season. It is always bad business to have old stocks on hand when the new season’s produce arrives on the market.” The opinion that the board should be given an opportunity of carrying out its policy was expressed by the Minister. It was only to be expected, he said, that there would be some opposition to the establishment of absolute control, and he thought that once the board was carrying out its policy to the full the opposition would die. There had been a great deal of agitation when the board was about to make the first money advances under control, but the board had won through and the farmer was now receiving his money just as he did before. In this connection it must be remembered that Tooley Street made the advances according to the market prospects. SPEECH BY MR. COATES. ARRANGEMENT WITHIN SIGHT. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Nov. 2, 5.5 p.m. London, Nov. 1. Mr. Coates deliberately devoted part of his speech at the Empire Producers’ luncheon to the co-operative organisation of New Zealand’s primary products and to co-operative marketing in London as a necessary corollary thereto, as he was desirous of removing some misapprehensions which have recently arisen in London connected with the Dairy Board operations. Mr. Coates is optimistic that an arrangement is within sight which will avoid antagonisms and friction with the London traders.