DAIRY BOARD CRITICISED

Taranaki Daily News, 6 February 1931, Page 16

DAIRY BOARD CRITICISED

PROMISES NOT CARRIED OUT COMMENT AT FARMERS’ MEETING. MR. lORNS DEFENDS THE BOARD. CONCERN AT TARANAKI ATTITUDE Members of the South Taranaki provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union found, much to say in criticism of the Dairy Control Board when they met yesterday. To most it semed that the board had been a failure and had not carried out what had been promised. Several of those who were very strong in their comment- admitted that they had supported the inauguration of the board, but had been disappointed. Discussion arose from the reading of a letter written by Mr. W. A. lorns, chairman of the board, to the Dominion president of the Farmers’ Union, Mr, W. J. Polson, M.P., with reference to criticisms of the board chiefly by TJaranaki and Waikato Farmers’ Union meetings. Mr. lorns defended, the actions of the board. A resolution criticising the board, was drafted and will be discussed at the next meeting of the executive. ; . ‘‘l have ndticed recently a good deal of criticism of 'the Dairy. Board at. Farmers’ Union- meetings, especially inTaranaki and -the Waikato,” wrote Mr. lorns. “At some meetings, resolutions have been passed which indicate a concerted plan of attack, on the board with pre-arranged . resolutions. Naturally I am somewhat -concerned and feel that these resolutions are passed, without a full knowledge of the. position, and that if farmers generally could be led to realise the exact cost of the board and. the savings effected, they would take the opposite attitude. The fact also that the secretary of the Farmers’ Union forwarded a letter suggesting suspension of the levy would, indicate that the position is not fully understood.” EXPENDITURE REVIEWED. Dealing first ■with the expenditure side of the board, Mr. lorns stated that the levy last year amounted to approximater ly £39,000, or about 10s per dairy farmer annually? Prior to the inception of the board dairy farmers had been paying approximately £6OOO per annum to the dairy associations for' shipping work. Of the levy approximately £25,000 was used for ordinary expenditure, including a. London office and staff and shipping inspection, with two shipping inspectors in New Zealand and one in Great Britain. The inauguration of shipping inspection had been possible only because the board had power to make a, levy 1 and the result had been that butter and cheese exported from New Zealand had never been transported and landed in such good condition as since the inception of the board. The board had been able to spend £•15,000 annually on advertising New Zealand dairy produce -in Great Britain. Furtjier it had been possible to spend £4,300 annually on scientific research. Neither the advertising nor the research work-could have-been undertaken without the powers under- an Act enabling a levy to be collected. The board undertook the whole of the actual shipping work for the Dominion, including the securing of space, regulating of shipments, and making out and handling all bills of lading for butter and cheese exported. The handling of documents required i a large staff, and the board had branched at Auckland, New Plymouth and Dunedin for that work. Then, too, the board had been able to supply information and statistics to the industry to 'an extent that had not been possible before. “Now while .the 'work of shipping, advertising and research has bpen possible by reason of the levy, the position really is ‘ that savings effected by •the board, far more than compensate for the expenditure,” wrote Mr. lorns. In reference first to shipping freights, the actual reductions since the inception of the board represented a saving of £346,000 per annum to the industry. As compared with Australia the board had been able to secure a much better freight, rate, and the Australian Dairy Board’s annual report stated that, New Zealand was better off than Australia by 15 per cent., which meant on New Zealand exports of dairy produce at least an advantage of £200,000 per annum. INSURANCE AT BEDROCK RATE.

In connection • with marine insurance, the board by reason of its statutory powers had been able to offer to the underwriters the whole of its export of butter and cheese, with the result that a bedrock rate had been secured, reducing the rates current when the board came into operation by £35,000 per annum.

In other words, the saving in marine insurance, alone far more than paid the ordinary expenses of the board. That saving went direct to every individual dairy company. The board’s insurance policy extended for another two years and in view of the present rising rate of premium was a valuable asset.

The board had also been able, because of its statutory powers, to arrange that all butter and cheese must be sorted in Great Britain under cold storage conditions and at a rate representing a reduction of £20,000 per annum. “Writing chairman of the Dairy Board to the Dominion president of ths Farmers’ Union, I would deeply appreciate your assistance in making these particulars known to the farmers generally,” said Mr. lorns. “My opinion is that the board does not warrant its cost at present,” said Mr. W. E. Carter. The first thing the board had intended to do was to regulate shipping, said Mr. Carter, but he had ’it on authority that the shipping was as bad as ever. In th& matter of insurance he thought that that could have been obtained, without the 'board. The board would be all right if it had Obtained what it started to carry out.

The quality of cheese should have been looked into, said Mr. Carter. Graders should, have been shifted around and endeavoured, to cater for the taste of the British markets. <

They should be able to grade the pro--duce for six months ahead, said Mr. J. A. Pettigrew. People in Britain were not particular to a difference of a penny a pound if the produce were right, contended Mr. Carter, but it was not. They would not have it..

I We must send the best of our cheese and I think the board could have done better,” said Mr. Carter. “The board does not warrant the individual salaries at present paid.” “They want stirring up,” said Mr. E. J. Betts, president of the executive. “They are becoming lax.” “The board must give what those in Britain want,” said Mr. A. L. Jennings. “Mind you,”. said Mr, Carter, “I do not believe that we have slipped as much as is made out. The farmers are not to blame.” Mr. J. Cocker said he was in a similar position to Mr. Carter’s in that he had favoured the board at its inception. It had been proved conclusively that the graders were not. grading to the taste of the British people. “The board is not sufficiently energetic; it is not pushing enough; in fact, the board is not earning its money,” said Mr. Cocker. “The secretary is receiving. about £lOOO a year, the chairman £750 and the various nominees £250 each as well as expenses. And old Strawberry has to pay for this. “There are too many boards and too many local bodies in this country,” continued Mr. Cocker. ‘‘We are overgoverned. Previously we had the ‘job’ done by the National Dairy Association for £6OOO but now we pay many times more. “I am told that Canada’s best advertisement to-day is New 'Zealand cheese,” said Mr. Carter.

“There are just as many complaints now as ever,” said Mr. E. J. Booth. He was not in favour of having a Government nominee on the board. They were just jogging along at the present. “Brainy men are wanted on the board,” said Mr. Booth, “but they cannot persuade ; them to take positions. There is less, mud but there are more leaders now.

“At the present time we must reduce our costs, and firstly the control board is ' costing too much. We perhaps could keep it going at Is 9d per lb butter-fat but not at 9d. We have honey, fruit, dairy produce and meat boards and I think that one office could control the lot.”