DAIRY INDUSTRY ILLS

Taranaki Daily News, 1 June 1927, Page 4

DAIRY INDUSTRY ILLS

THE POSITION IN LONDON CONTROL AND PRICE-FIXING, MR GOODFELLOWS VOLTE FACE. (From Oui- Own Correspondent.) Wellington, May 30. Although he had unburdened himself at the monthly meeting of the Dairy Board two or three days before and had entrusted his confidence to quite a number of personal friends, it was not until the appearance of the morning paper on Saturday that many interested people learned that Mr. William Goodfellow, the biggest figure In the dairy industry of the Dominion to-day, had returned from his flying visit to London satisfied that “absolute control has gone,” that “it is absolutely hopeless to think of re-establishing price-fixing” and that the only way of securing the best prices for the producers “is by the formation of group export marketing companies.” In order to reconcile these revised views of the dairying situation with his former insistence upon absolute control, price-fixing and the extinction of free marketing, Mr. Goodfellow finds it necessary to occupy four columns of solid newspaper print in explaining why his carefully prepared designs have gone astray and why he is law prepared to concede almost everything to his former opponents. It cannot be said with truth that his foui columns of print add much to his reputation either as a controversialist or as a veracious chronicler. His, it would seem, is the case of the lawyer with a bad case seeking to extricate his client from an unhappy position by abusing the other side. AN EMPTY INVENTION. No graver indictment than the one levelled by Mr. Goodfellow against “certain members of the Dairy Board,” “a small group of Wellington exporters” and the newspapers of the Dominion could be framed. Had it been directed against an individual its validity could not have gone unchallenged in a court of law. Yet in his whole four columns of print Mr. Goodfellow does not advance one tittle of evidence in support of his allegations. He tells of the leading buyer of the largest multiple shop organise, tion laughing at the idea of New Zealand butter being boycotted on account of price-fixing; of a recognised butter expert declaring at the time New Zealand butter was selling at 154 s that the priee should have been from 165 s to 170 s, of one of the largest merchant importers volunteering the opinion that had the Dairy Board’s scheme been properly supported by the producers in New Zealand there was no doubt in his mind that the Control Board’s policy wousrl have been a success. And so on and so on, without in a single instance the slightest indication of the name or tha standing of the individual who, in courtesy or in conviction, was prepared to say what Mr. Goodfellow wanted him to say. On the other hand, the Hon. J. G. Coates, the Prime Minister of the Dominion, to quote only one of the many reliable witnesses on the other side, after the closest investigation of the facts on the spot, gave it as his opinion that the continuance of pricefixing would be attended by disastrous results. BLAME AND REPENTANCE. Having regard to his present attitude towards absolute control and price-fix-ing it is more than a little difficult to believe that Mr. Goodfellow really regrets what has happened. If he ever honestly thought these panaceas for the various ills from which he told the producers they were suffering would be effective, surely he would not have renounced them simply because “a small group of Wellington exporters, assisted by a useful medium for propaganda,” had raised their voice in protest. Curiously enough, after denouncing the exporters for having wrecked the policy of “compulsion,” Mr. Goodfellow proceeds to lay tjie blame for this catastrophe upon the shoulders of a number of other people, quite impartially. “The scheme of absolute control has been wrecked by dissension within the indus. try and by farmers themselves,” he says. “If Parliament had granted legislation to the producers along the lines originally asked for then the desired stability would have been maintained and the control system would have proved a success. The wrong men were on the Dairy Board because of the method of election. Responsibility for this must rest largely with the Labour Party and the Liberal Party in their demand for the democratic principle of one man one vote.” Finally in a spasm of candour and chivalry Mr. Goodfellow proclaims that he is “quite prepared to accept personally a full measure of blame for the failure of the absolute control policy under the conditions and -circumstances outlined.” This is as it should be. Had the Dairy Beard been content to follow the policy Mr. Massey expected it to follow in all probability it would have encountered little adverse criticism and done much for the producers and their industry. Is it too late, while Mr. Goodfellow still is at the stool of repentance, for the board to retraes its steps and apply itself to the good work for which it was designed?