DAIRY BOARD’S POLICY

Taranaki Daily News, 1 February 1927, Page 4

DAIRY BOARD’S POLICY

A SURPRISING DECISION

CHARGE AGAINST LONDON MEMBER INDICTMENT REMAINS UNPROVED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington, Jan. 28. Surprise in some quarters and indignation in others are being expressed Tn the city at the resolution adopted by the Dairy Board at its last meeting urging, in effect, that Mr. Stronach Paterson, the Government’s nominee on the board’s London agency, should be removed from his poeition because he is unable to support the whole of the board’s policy. The wording of Nie resolution already has gone the round of the Dominion newspapers, but in order that the local resentment may be fully understood it will not be amiss to quote it again. “That the Acting Prime Minister be written to,” it runs, “pointing out that Mr. Paterson, the Government nominee on the London agency, is not supporting the policy of the board, and m making the position in London very difficult, and the board considers that Mr. Paterson should be retired from the agency.” Mr. Paterson, as is generally known, is a director of A. S. Paterson and Co., Ltd., one of the biggest commercial firms in the Dominion, and was selected by the Government as its representative on the board on account of his intimate acquaintance with local and overseas trade, his wide knowledge of affairs, and his high standing in the business community. In addition to these qualifications for t»he position he occupies on the board., he is a man in the prime of life, with a fluent tongue, an impressive manner, and a wholehearted belief in New Zealand and its 'Potentialities.

THE INDICTMENT. As the meetings of the Dairy Board are held behind dosed doors, so far as the unsubeidised newspapers are concerned it is necessary to turn to the board’s subsidised publication to ascertain the nature of the indictment against Mr. Paterson. “In connection with the Government nominee,” the condensation by that publication of some remarks made by Mr. Grounds, the chairman of the board, reads, “he was satisfied that no one directly interested in the merchandising of dairy produce should have a seat on the agency. The present nominee had declared himself as definitely opposed to the board’s policy. His continued presence on the agency, therefore, was a serious handicap to the board “and a menace to the development of the industry.” Later on in the proceedings Mr. Grounds thought it necessary to emphasise his assertions. “He considered the worst feature of the position was,” the condensation of his further remarks runs, “that Mr. Paterson drew a salary of £lOOO a year from the producers. He was entitled to hie own views, but while drawing that salary as a member of the board he should either obey the board’s policy as laid down or resign.” Mr. J. R. Corrigan—who appears to have changed sides, since he was elected to the board a little while ago as an opponent of "absolute control”—is represented as saying that Mr. Paterson had misled the Prime Minister while that gentleman was in London, and Mr. Grounds as '•ndoraiag hr^-friend’s.-

THE CHAIRMAN’S PROTEGE. Then there is published in the board’s newspaper from the pen of Mr. Grounds an appreciation of Mr. J. B. Wright, which is given point by an extremely offensive allusion to Mr. Paterson. “It is not necessary,” the chairman says, “to outline the early steps taken to develop this idea of antagonism to the manager prior to my arrival in London, although these can be traced with reaS'iable. correctness. But, subsequent to my arrjwal in London, cablegrams were sent string that the trade objected to Mr. Wright. There is no doubt that this was represented to Mr. Coates by certain members of the trade, but probably with greater frequency by the Government representative on the agency, who never wearied in its assertion. What soon became clear to me—that the move was only a subterfuge to break down control—was proved at the joint conference of some members of the trade and ourselves, before the Prime Minister. At this meeting, when their opposition to Mr. Wright was examined, it was found that none of these delegates had been in business contact with him. They admitted that the objection they had voiced was based upon what they had heard. Surely an extraordinary basis for the advocacy of views by a supposedly representative delegation!” This seems to bo the culmination of Mr. Paterson’s offences. The representative of the Government might have been forgiven for receiving a thousand a year, or even for disapproving of some of the board's methods, but for harbouring independent thought, never! UNPROVEN. The indictment against Mr. Paterson, taken all in all, does not stand for a great deal. Mr. Grounds* contention, which is embodied in the board’s resolution, that Mr. Paterson should either conform to the policy of the board or resign hie eeat on the agency is simply ludicrous. Mr. Paterson was" induced to go to London by the prospect of being of some service to the dairy industry and to the country at large. Had the Government’s Representative simply been required to endorse the proposals of the board lie might just as well have been substituted by a junior officer from the Department of Agriculture, or even by a rubber stamp. The suggestion made by Mr. Grounds, and his friend, Mr. Corrigan, that Mr. Paterson misled the Prime Minister as to the condition of affairs in London must have been aimed at Mr. Coates rather than at the Government's representative. The Minister himself may be left to deal with these gentlemen, whose methods of criticism on occasions may be extremely unfortunate. The assertion that Mr. Paterson had spoken disparagingly of Mr. Wright, in the sense implied, is utterly unsupported by evidence of any kind. It is true that he opposed some of Mr. Wright’s views, as he opposed some of the views of the majority of the board, but the effect of his opposition was that the office management of the agency was vastly improved, and many of the disgrcftitled buyers and distributors were conciliated. If the Dairy Board would open its meetings to the representatives of the free Press it would have an opportunity to place itself upon a much more consistent footing with the publie.