The Daily News TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1927. THE END OF DAIRY CONTROL.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 May 1927, Page 8

The Daily News TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1927. THE END OF DAIRY CONTROL.

Yesterday we published lengthy statements made hy the two members of the Dairy Control Board who are standing for re-eleetion. The first was that of Mr. Goodfellow, managing-director of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Co., who represents Auckland and Waikato producers upon the hoard; the second, Mr. Forsyth’s address to Taranaki dairy farmers which he delivered at Eltham on Saturday. Whether the reasons he advances are agreed with or not, the conclusion to which Mr. Goodfellow has been forced is a sound one. It is that compulsory control has proved a costly fiasco, and that there is nothing to do but abandon the compulsory pooling, get back to free marketing, and leave the board to supervise export conditions with a view of securing the best possible terms in freight, insurance, etc., and maintaining such conditions as will ensure New Zealand produce reaching the market in the best possible condition. Here is his summary of the position to-day, and a more damning indictment of the board’s methods and judgment it would be hard for its bitterest opponent to set forth. “It is,” says Mr. Goodfellow, “absolutely hopeless to think of re-establish-ing price-fixing. Those firms who were prepared to support control in the first instance now feel that they have been badly let down by the supporters of control, and in my opinion the board is now the laughing stock of Tooley Street. It has fallen out with its friends, and is despised by its enemies in London, and any attempt to reinstate price-fixing would simply be another serious blunder.” It was hardly likely that one who had taken so large a share in bringing about the existence of a Control Board should not have indulged in a good deal of special pleading to explain the causes of its failure. Mr. Goodfellow blames primarily the Liberal and Labour parties which “presented a combined opposition for the democratic principle of one man one vote,” instead of allowing the board to be elected by factory directorates on a tonnage basis. Such a board, he considers, would have had the desired stability to ignore all protests of producers here, merchants in London, Ministers of the Crown, and financial advisors. The policy of price fixation would have been ruthlessly maintained, and the board’s scheme, according to Mr. Goodfellow, proved an unqualified success. He shows that, despite the most recent explanation of the chairman of the board (Mr. Grounds), that compulsory control was only decided upon, according to promise, after full enquiry had ‘been made,, it was the real basis upon which the whole policy was built. Knowing that even in the board itself

there was not that unanimity of policy necessary to make it successful, those in favour of absolute control went on with their scheme and imposed their will upon the whole industry, notwithstanding the fact that nearly 30 per cent, of the producers had openly sjiovvn hostility and announced their intention of vigorously fighting against it. From the moment that policy was decided upon, against the wishes of a considerable body of producers, against the advice of certain experienced members of the board itself, and against the advice of the buyers with whom co-opera-tion was essential for success, there was nothing but disaster ahead. Mr. Goodfellow maintains that the abolition of pricefixing was not warranted by the statistical position in London. He says further that there was no boycott of New Zealand produce in evidence. He does not explain why, in these circumstances, it was impossible to sell our produce even at the falling prices, and yet when price-fixing wag removed sales became possible and prices moved steadily upward. The whole of his arguments appear to be more in the nature of a smoke screen to disguise the retreat which he secs is inevitable, than anything else. Its chief value to the industry is the assurance it gives that the necessity for prompt retreat is thoroughly well recognised by so prominent a member of the board. After the thunder from the Waikato, Mr. Forsyth’s address is rather a “still small voice.” He broke no new ground, and gave no explanations that have not been used over and over again by those who support the maintenance of the board with all its compulsory powers unimpaired. His suggestion that the low-price for New Zealand butter under controlled prices, as compared with Danish, was due to the English prejudice against frozen produce was, if a somewhat laboured and belated explanation, at least a novel one in these days, though perhaps even Mr. Forsyth himself did no.t expect it to be treated too seriously. His description of the difference of opinion upon the board in regard to such an important matter as the appointment of the London manager but confirms the statements of Mr. Goodfellow that there was never the unanimity amongst board members which was essential to success, but he offered no explanation of his action in going further than the “moderate control” of produce in which he believed when elected. His assurance that never again would he be a party to the policy of price fixation must be viewed in the light of his actions as a member of the board. There is little doubt now but that compulsory control will go. A Frankenstein monster, conceived in ignorance and nurtured in arrogance, the sooner it is decently interred the better. The damage it. has done must be accepted and paid for, unfortunately wholly by the producers themselves. The Ministry has its part to do in cleaning up the costly litter of distrust and contempt the board’s failure has left behind it. There is only one way of doing this, and that is by passing legislation limiting the Dairy Control Board’s functions to a legitimate sphere, and so regaining the confidence of the producers and the co-operation of the buyers overseas.