“BELLING THE CAT”

Taranaki Daily News, 21 June 1928, Page 11

“BELLING THE CAT”

SOMEONE HAD TO DO IT MR. GOODFELLOW’S RESIGNATION. MR. GROUNDS STATES HIS CASE. A SPIRITED ADDRESS GIVEN. (From Our Own Reporter.) Palmerston N., Last Night. The lecture hall was crowded to-night when Mr. W. Grounds, ehairman of the Dairy Produce Board, gave a lengthy and vigorous address, giving an insight into the inner - workings and an explanation of the decisions of the board. He was given a very attentive hearing.

At the outset Mr. Grounds said he fully realised the responsibility he was carrying. He wanted them to believe the board had very much good work to do yet in the interests of the industry. He had exercised great forbearance in endeavouring to prevent dissension which, he recognised, was likely to split their ranks, but peace could be purchased at too high a price, while a clash of personalities might lead to the idea that it was a personal quarrel. It was far deeper than that, Mr. Grounds reviewed the accomplishments of the board, showing that it had substantially reduced freights, saving last year to the industry over £200,000. The board had made improved cool storage arrangements in London whereby all dairy produce must be placed in cool store immediately on arrival. The board’s advertising- campaign was doing inestimable good, and they were assisting in research work in connection with the industry. The board had proved beyond question that it was able to establish an office and efficiently handle the control work.

Months ago, indeed at the National Dairy Conference at Rotorua, he was fully aware ’of Mr. Goodfellow’s resentment, and that intrigues had been introduced with a view to arranging the future chairmanship. He said he had difficulty in getting his reulv published, but it was quite clear that to protect themselves the New Zealand Coop. Dairy Company had to form a bodyguard for Mr. Goodfellow. Sine© his retirement Mr. Goodfellow had criticised the board, but had made contradictory statements. On one hand he said it was necessary to establish a central organisation, and that it was necessary to educate dairy farmers. On the other hand he warned producers against the Control Board’s policy. Ho also said the board was too expensive. _ Mr. Grounds said ho did not subscribe to the policy of “all or nothing.” Circumstances had made it impossible for the board to follow its original policy. It was therefor© in order for the board to do what it could rather than get off the grass and leave the industry to be exploited by other interests. STRONG BOARD REQUIRED. He wondered if the suggestion that the board should be limited to four North Island and two South Island members was made with the idea that Waikato would elect two North Island members? He considered that a strong producers’ board was required. The board had considered the license conditions in detail in August, finally approving as issued. As executive officer he Jiad carried out that- policy _in December, when the motion to rescind the clauses was defeated by 8 to 4. The board’s policy was reaffirmed in March and again in April. He reviewed the whole position that imquestionably precipitated the crisis. He was prepared to stand by his review. It had been suggested that if he were prepared to accept a compromise regarding the supply of certain information all would be well, but he considered that had he accepted a compromise they would later have been subjected to further humiliation.

He had advocated that the board should supervise marketing for all factories that desired it. He still advocated that, pointing out that it would have received a remission of the half per cent, commission imposed. Even if 25 per cent, of the output had agreed that would have effected a saving to factories of £25,000. Those who were claiming the board was too expensive were responsible for the board not undertaking this marketing service, which would lead to further developments of marketing when the industry recognised the time was ripe for it. He could understand why the company newly formed opposed the scheme, because the board’s activities would limit its expansion. The main object of trie board's formation was to improve marketing facilities. That should still be the objective. He held that the dual personability of the New. Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company and amalgamated dairies would undoubtedly cause confusion in dairymen’s minds. Mr. Goodfellow’s assertion that information asked for by the board would become available to competitors was unwarranted. It cast suspicion on the board’s officials and justified the opposition’s contention that he, as a member of the board, would have access to the details of their business. "FEAR OF WAIKATO’S POWER.” Mr. Grounds said he had been associated with the movement since its inception, and denied that he had made any effort to alter the constitution of the board. He still favoured the council system, which gave greater stability and better representation, besides more truly reflecting the mind of the industry. Mr. Goodfellow did not clearly understand that the objection of the industry to the council was the fear of Waikato’s power. Mr. Goodfellow, when he returned from England, gave a statement to the Press, transferring the blame for the failure of absolute control from the vested interests to dairy farmers. While recognising Mr. Goodfellow’s ability, it. must also be recognised that he had transferred definitely to another camp, and they eould advance better without him. The suggestion that the dairy and meat boards should be consolidated was but an attempt to side track the board. He had become impressed with th© menace confronting the industry, instancing the cancellation of space during the past season by the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy - Company, when prices fell and their efforts shortly afterwards when prices had risen to get their space allocation renewed. This, if conceded, would have shut out shipments of the smaller factories, who had been regularly shipping under the board's arrangements'. There was a very

serious menace entailed if the shipping of a very large quantity of produce were controlled by any interests other than the board representing the whole industry. His settled convictions were that the difficulties of the Control Board were due to intrigues within the board, a caucus having been held at which he was not invited. The opposition were chagrined at the slip at the last minute over the nomination in connection with the recent election. Ho expressed no bitterness or reproach, as he thought they knew better now. There was one member of the board, who was not a supporter of his policy, who saw clearly what was happening, and was courageous enough to speak out his mind. That was an invigorating fact. Concluding, Mr. Grounds Baid the question was, had anyone the courage to ‘‘bell the cwt?” Recognising that it was his duty to do so, he did not flinch, but having had some experience with cats lie got it well into the bag first. lie wished to drive home to them the strength of the opposition to the Control Board, which needed the united strength of the industry. There would, probably be an attempt made at the forthcoming session to secure an alteration to the Act, but he was confident the industry would not submit to the elimination of control power. However, there was necessity for the united, dairy power behind the board, standing for the industry, and not for individuals. There were those who thought that if intrigued out of the chairmanship he would be silent. “Let us pity their simplicity,” he said. The issue was entirely in the hands of the industry and upon how it responded would depend its future. Mr. lorns expressed regret that the ehairman had indulged in recriminations and criticised members of the board. (Cries of “Order!”) He asked why Mr. Grounds had prevented his giving tq the Press copies of reports on his return from London, and had only allowed them to bo published under pressure. Also why he had not told them that he had told the Danes that New Zealand would take 5s less than Danish if they would agree to price-fixing. Also why had he said he had arranged the finance , when 28 T.ooley Street merchants had said he had not interviewed them. Mr. Grounds denied that he had ever endeavoured to suppress letters sent to the board. He had discussed financial matters with the leading institutions in London, and it was ridiculous to say he had stated that New Zealand would accept 5s less than Danish, as all butter was sold on quality. He had merely discussed statistics with the Danes. . Mr. Gordon (Opotiki) thought Mr. Grounds had taken an unfair advantage of Mr. Goodfellow’s absence. Mr. Dynes Fulton considered that to suggest that the New Zealand Co-op. Dairy Company was responsible for the failure was a sorry excuse. In the course of further discussion the chairman (Mr. Monk) said Mr. Grounds had never crossed the line of fair criticism. Mr. Hine asked for the indulgence of the meeting for Mr. Dynes Fulton to explain the position of his company. The chairman, in refusing, said that would necessitate tiie same privilege being extended to other speakers. A vote of thanks was accorded to Mr. Grounds. An amendment to the motion was moved by Mr. Broadbelt (Levin) that tiie conference support the action of Mr. Grounds in regard to the policy of the board. In seconding the motion, Mr. Muggeridge (Alton) made a remark that Mr. lorns took exception to, and demanded its withdrawal. Mr, Muggeridge declined to withdraw It, but later in the afternoon said that as Mr. lorns had read into h.s remark something not intended, but which, he admitted could bo read into it, he withdrew the remark, and Mr. lorns unreservedly accepted the withdrawal.