DAIRY MARKET CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1929, Page 11

DAIRY MARKET CONTROL

AMALGAMATION OF BOARDS VIEWS OF FARMERS’ CONFERENCE. NARROW MARGIN OF SUPPORT. t>By Wire —Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. Considerable discussion took place at the New Zealand Farmers’ Union conference this afternoon on a remit brought forward by Southland suggesting that the conference oppose any proposal for the amalgamation of the Dairy Control Board and the Meat Producers’ Board. The remit was lost after discussion. In support of the remit the Southland delegates stressed that an amalgamated board would be difficult to manage and that it would be difficult to secure a manager who was expert in both industries. They pointed out that the only argument in favour of amalgamation was that there would be a saving of £4OOO, which was a small amount when spread over the two industries.

Several other delegates supported the Southland speakers. Mr. W. J. Polson drew attention to the big expense, of both boards and the fact that they were overlapping in certain respects. He suggested a reconstituted board which should deal with both industries. For the purposes of argument he suggested that each board should elect four members and that an independent chairman should be appointed by the Government. Mr. Polson pointed out that the entire business of each industry was not controlled by the respective boards, which

dealt mainly with questions of sh‘—‘ . insurance and advertising. By amalgamation or reconstitution probably hundreds of thousands of pounds would be saved.

The farmers had to fight to maintain co-operative control. One compact body could better withstand any attacks that might be made. Mr. Duxfield (Horotui) considered two boards were a useless waste of expenditure. One of the biggest problems was that of shipping, and butter and meat went Home in the same boat.. Mr. R. Cocker (South Taranaki) stressed the fact that amalgamation would mean strength. Mr. Kerr (Hawke’s Bay) supported amalgamation and Mr. Munro (Auckland) contended that the work of the boards had had not justified their establishment. Mr. Dalton (Canterbury) agreed with amalgamation, pointing out its'overlapping in the country was costing thousands of pounds. The conference should help to reduce costs. Mr. Harding (Mangawhare) opposed amalgamation. The meat board had the confidence of the meat producers of the Dominion. Mr. Chadwick (Dannevirke) suggested the question could be discussed when the new constitution for the proposed board was brought down. The remit was lost by two votes. Mr. Polson then suggested that, as the voting had been so close, the whole thing should be dropped and considered next year. He did not want to catch delegates on a snap vote. He would like to see a scheme drafted by the Dominion executive and sent to the provinces for full discussion. He moved accordingly and the motion was carried.