DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1933, Page 9

DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

’ MIDHIRST FAVOURS RETENTION.' ADVERSE MOTION DEFEATED. The Dairy Produce Board came under fire at the annual meeting of the Midhirst Dairy Company yesterday, particularly in regard to the proposed increased levy and advertising campaign. After discussion, however,• the ■ meeting decided in favour of the retention of the board. Mr. E. J. Blick moved, “That the shareholders of the company desire that the Dairy Produce Export Control Act, 1923, and. its amendments be repealed, and the New Zealand Dairy Control Board be abolished, and that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industries and Commerce.” The motion was seconded by Mr. W. Somers. . The chairman said that while the Midhirst suppliers might pass such a resolution there was no chance of getting •rid of the b&ard. He had been present at both the Palmerston North and Hamilton conferences of the N.D.A., when remits to the effect that the board should be abolished had been thrown out practically unanimously. Therefore if Midhirst did pass a resolution it would have no effect.

A supplier: Give it a go, anyway. Mr. B. Richmond said that the suppliers having started out to abolish the ■board should keep at it because justice in a good cause must win out. The balance-sheet showed that the company had paid £635 8s to the N.D.A. and £363 8s Id in control levy, and he understood the board proposed to increase the levy in order to spend an additional £25,000 on advertising. He had always advocated advertising N.w Zealand goods by sending forward high quality produce. -That would be a better advertisement than paying one or two meh to “run around the country without results." It was certain, he said, though he was strongly opposed to any restriction that they were going to have a restriction imposed in the amount of butter and cheese exported, and if so there would be less need for advertising than ever. Mr. Richmond said that if the suppliers were prepared for the company to find another £5OO or £6OO per annum they should support , the Dairy Board. Tile time would come when after paying ’the Ni>.A. and Dairy Board levies

there would only be left 6d “pocket money” for the suppliers. Unless they continued to fight hard they would never get rid of the board. The chairman pointed out that there was no 'subscription to the N.D.A. The £635 mentioned was a contingent liability on share capital. Mr. F. Gladding said he was surprised at Mr. Richmond speaking as he had because he was practically an advocate for whey butter. The Dairy Board had certainly done a lot of good for the butter side of the industry by having whey butter handled in Britain by one agent, to be sold as pastry butter, so keeping it out of competition with creamery butter. The resolution was defeated.