VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1934, Page 9

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS

DAIRY FACTORY AMALGAMATION.

WOULD IT BE ADVANTAGEOUS? ft (To the Editor.) Sir,—Rumour has it that one of tha recommendations to be made by the Dairy Commission might be to the effect that it is advisable that there should be a merging or amalgamation of dairy companies into larger concerns. This may or may not prove to be true. It may be well to briefly consider the possibility of such a recommendation, and how it would affect Taranaki dairy companies and producers. Taranaki possesses no large dairy produce manufacturing unit which has been built up by merger or amalgamation of companies. It has undoubtedly large units, such as the Joll company and others, but not one has extended, its operations by the absorption of either large or small independent companies. On the other hand, there are many instances of the opposite tendency, where branches of larger concerns have left the parent company and become independent units. In these cases none has come to grief, and the majority contend they have gained by the change. It may, therefore, be reasonably inferred that Taranaki would not take kindly any advice of the kind under discussion, unless some very substantial proofs of its benefit could be produced. In these hard times £.s.d. or financial gain would form a weighty incentive. Can such be produced? Practically the only large concern in New Zealand from which comparison and proofs are available is the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, which has for a period of years, by amalgamation and absorption of other companies, increased its output and operations, and more than offset its losses by reason of part of its suppliers going over to such companies as the Morrinsville and Te Awamutu co-operative dairy companies. The suppliers of this huge dairy company have, not in the past, so far as butter and cheese are concerned, been paid as much as the suppliers of Taranaki companies. It is difficult to make any real comparison, as the New Zealand Dairy Company in its balancesheet only specifies the “total payment on butter-fat of finest grade” for buttermaking. No total payments for cheese factories are supplied. Calculation shows that upon a clear of cartage basis Morrinsville Co-op. paid out this last season 9.1635 d and the big company 9.1209 d on butter, which will not appeal to advocates of amalgamations. Other factors calling for consideration are that while most Taranaki factories pay interest on share capital the New Zealand Dairy Company pays none on its £1,257,000 of paid-up share capital, though its “profit and loss account of the butter department for the year ending May 31, 1934,” shows that practically £35,000 is collected from rents, rebates, exchange, dividends and'interest. Should rumour be correct, is it possible to imagine Taranaki farmers swallowing the recommendation? Or alternatively, is it. possible the Commission is capable of producing good and sufficient reason why they should?—l am, etc., GEO. GIBSON. Rahotu, Sept. 17. WAIRAU RIVER EROSION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —At the last meeting of the Egmont County Council Mr. Green replied to certain statements I made at the- Harbour Board meeting relative to the Wairau River erosion. Among other things Mr. Green declared that he was “not going to be dictated to by the Opunake Harbour Board or the members of any other board,” also .that “as’ long as he was chairman he was not going to sed money spent illegally in protecting other people’s property.” No one has asked Mr. Green to spend money either illegally or. in protecting other people’s property; nor has the Opunake Harbour Board attempted to dictate to Mr, Green or to anyone else. \ So far as the question of protecting other people’s property is concerned the position is clear. The Harbour Board owns a section valued at £320 which is leased to the county council, which’has erected thereon a shed valued at £lO2O (I understand it cost considerably more, but that is the Government valuation) 1 : This property is seriously menaced -by erosion, as even councillors admit. The Harbour Board receives a rental'of some £l6 per annum, and presumably will continue to do so so long as sufficient of the section remains to hold the shed. Should the erosion render the section useless to the county it neces&rily destroys the value of the shed. The Harbour Board would lose a -.maximum of £320, • the county a minimum of £lO2O. Whose property, then, requires protection? Surely the county has three times as much at stake as the Harbour Board. If it is the duty of the Harbour Board to protect its own property ’ (and Mr. Green claims it is) how can the county escape its similar responsibility? The members of the Harbour Board have long realised the seriousness of the position. They have twice endeavoured to secure the friendly co-opera-tion of other interested parties—not ’as yet for the actual carrying out of protective worizs, but merely •to enable a proper investigation to be made into the whole position. This would have been secured but for one thing—the stand taken by Mr. Green. Apparently he desires the Harbour Board to “carry the baby,” or, in other words, to protect not only its own property but the county’s as well. Because we decline to be imposed upon, Mr. Green is forced to justify his obstructiveness by suggesting that the Harbour Board wants him to do something illegal. Thereby Mr. Green reveals his lack of appreciation of the position. - ’ At the first conference held twelve months ago the delegates of all bodies represented, including the county, agreed to request + heir respective boards to ascertain their legal position relative to any scheme that might be proposed with a view to having legislative authority obtained safeguarding all parties, should it be found that any legal obstacle might exist to the-participation of all boards in any scheme agreed on. Mr. Green’s declaration on the question of illegality must therefore fall rather flat To all who are acquainted with the seriousness of this matter the attitude of Mr. Green must appear quite indefensible. Our only concern is to see something done, if possible at moderate cost, to deal with this menace and not to wrangle over the apportionment of the cost. If any local body can show that it has nothing at stake no one will ask it to pay. Can Mr. Green or any of his colleagues fairly claim that the county is in this position? If not their refusal- to - co-operate even in the matter of a preliminary investigation amounts to a deliberate evasion,of a definite responsibility.—l am, etc., , W. A. SHE AT, - : Deputy-Chairman, Opunake Harbour. Board. Pihama, Sept. 17.