The Daily News THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1926. THE DAIRY PRODUCE CRISIS

Taranaki Daily News, 4 November 1926, Page 8

The Daily News THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1926. THE DAIRY PRODUCE CRISIS

Those present at the meeting of dairy representatives at Stratford on Tuesday could hardly have been satisfied with the information vouchsafed by the three members of the Control Board. Mr. Forsyth admitted at the outset that the industry deserved a little more information as to the operations of the board than had been given in the past, but when it came to detailing the nature of the cables received from the Prime Minister and members of the board at present in London, information of profound importance to those present, he declined to do so on the ground that it had been sent to the Minister of Agriculture, without whose permission it could not be divulged. It has been left to another member of the board (Mr. T. M. Timpany), at Invercargill, to supply the information. This was printed in yesterday’s issue, and, together with the report of the Stratford meeting, affords very instructive reading. The hesitancy of the board in making the cables public can now be understood, for they are the greatest indictment that could be levelled against the policy of the board. Incidentally it should be mentioned that Mr, Coates, in his cable, askes that a copy should be sent to the Minister of Agriculture, proving that it was addressed to other than the Minister, whilst the cables from Mr. Irons and Paterson, two members of the board in London, as well as Mr. Ground’s cable, were apparently addressed to the board. Now these messages have a most important bearing upon the well-being of the Dominion, and particularly the dairying industry. They affected the policy of the board to a degree that nothing else has done, yet the utmost secrecy was observed, and but for the enterprise of a Wellington newspaper and the candour of Mr. Timpany, producers would be quite in the dark still as to the course of movements of such vital interest to them. If the board desires to gain the confidence of producers, then it must be straightforward and frank, all the more so because such a large section, and a growing section, is totally opposed to the policy of compulsory control. The cables alluded to indicate, as nothing else has done,

the gravity of the situation caused by the precipitative, ill-consid-ered action of the board. Mr. Coates tells the board that the policy of price fixation is a great mistake, and that any method of the kind would engender antagonism. He also mentions that the trade has no confidence in the board’s manager (Mr. Wright), and concludes by stating that Mr. Paterson’s telegram to the board correctly represents the feeling of the majority interested in the trade. Mr. Paterson’s wire is an entire repudiation of the whole scheme of control as put into force by the board, and urges that to avoid disaster the board should abandon price-fixing and adopt the Australian system. He also urges the board to dispense with the services of the manager, and appoint another who will have the goodwill of the London merchants. Mr. Irons is no less emphatic in his references to the untenability of the present position. Mr. Grounds, however, is evidently satisfied with Mr. Wright, and ■wants Mr. Irons to be recalled, and Mr. Motion made chairman. Thus we have the spectacle of the London members of the board all at sixes and sevens, with Mr. Coates right in the thick of it, evidently gravely concerned over the course of events and the con- 1 sequences if something is not done immediately. The board meets in Wellington. Mr. Corrigan, who was returned to the board as an opponent to price control, does not push his motion abrogating fixation, but allows himself, wittingly or unwittingly, to be persuaded into believing that “price naming” is different from “price fixation,” and that the alteration in name will conciliate the Home interests. He does not say that the board retains the right to veto any price so “named.” The urgent and emphatic -wishes of the Prime Minister are disregarded, and the causes of the opposition to the purchase of New Zealand produce in London remain. Mr. Coates is impotent. He has to abide by the decision of the board, for it has full legislative sanction for all its functions and operations. That authority was given by Mr. Coates and his Government. So that he has no one to blame but himself for being led into such an impasse. Meantime New Zealand butter continues to be neglected on the Home market, whilst there is a firm and increasing demand for the “free” produce from other countries. “Control” will not work at Home, a fact which anyone who knows anything of the marketing conditions there realised from the beginning, but still the Minister for Agriculture and board members like Messrs. Forsyth and Corrigan persist in endeavouring to justify the system. Dairymen have now got an insight into the nature of the crisis confronting the industry. They also know to their cost how dangerous it is to endeavour to break down old marketing customs and to deflect the course of the law of supply and demand in an essentially free trade country like England. The position, wq. are afraid, will not be improved by the latest action of the board. It has to throw over, absolutely and irrevocably, the whole scheme of market control, and confine its attentions to matters that more properly come within its purview—such as attending to shipping, advertising, extension of markets, furnishing data regarding the operations and methods of our competitors, scientific research, improvements in manufacture —before the bitterness their methods have engendered at Home is assuaged and the opposition converted into the whole-hearted support that was always forthcoming under the former condition of things.