DAIRY CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 6 November 1934, Page 5

DAIRY CONTROL

TARANAKI’S OPINIONS DISCUSSION OF REPORT FINANCE AIM APPROVED CRITICISM OF COUNCIL

Thorough and lengthy ventilation of the problems of the Taranaki dairy farmer was again given at Stratford yesterday afternoon, when the Taranaki Federation of Co-operative Dairy Companies held an open meeting of farmers to discuss the report of the Dairy Commission and the proposed legislation concerning the industry. Mr. T. A. Winks presided over about 200 farmers from many parts of the province who met in the town hall. General aprpoval of the financial measures recommended for the help of the farmer was expressed, but the appointment of the Executive Commission of Agriculture in supreme control and the alteration of the Dairy Board to include three, members nominated by the Government and of its franchise to restrict the voting for the four elected members to' directors of dairy companies received considerable criticism. Three motions were carried, the first stressing the urgency for financial relief, the second insisting on the reference of all legislation concerning the internal workings of the dairy industry to the Dairy Board before it was gazetted, and the third agreeing to the executive having full power “subject to the prerogatives of the Government.” INVESTIGATION ASKED FOE.

A review of the circumstances leading up to the report of the Dairy Commission was made by the chairman in his introductory address. The producers had felt, he said, that a thorough investigation of — farming conditions was necessary, and had therefore, asked for it. The personnel of the commission had been well received by the industry, and was well fitted to weigh the evidence. It had been accepted as a good commission, and arrangements had been made for exhaustive inquiries into all branches of farm work. The subsequent report was an honest attempt to help the industry. “The commission was perhaps in a better position than we are now to report on the conditions,” said Mr. Winks, “as it has heard the whole of the evidence on the whole industry in New Zealand.” The report was well worth putting into use. Perhaps when thoroughly considered many of the objections to the recommendations that were now raised would be overcome. The report had made various suggestions as to how the quality of dairy produce could be improved, such as improved hot water system, and had even provided for the financing of those farmers who could not afford to have the changes made. A committee of three had been suggested to look into marketing conditions in Great Britain and to make a report. One of the big difficulties in improving the industry was to overcome the obstacles of people with fixed ideas which could not be changed overnight. It would take time. Some of the factories had been reported to be in an obsolete condition, so that it was not possible for them to produce good cheese. It . was suggested that if the companies concerned could not afford to reconstruct their factories on the best lines they should be assisted. If quality was being held back through these factories, said Mr. Winks, the recommendation was a step in the right direction.

CRIPPLING THE INDUSTRY. The greatest of all the recommendations, however, was that referring to rural mortgage co-ordination. The present high rates of interest were crippling the industry. The great thing was to have the land clear of mortgages. Such a scheme was in operation in Denmark, the loans being paid back in about 35 years. It was a step in the right direction, said the chairman, and the farmers should endeavour to have it put on the Statute Book immediately. “Of course you cannot have it all your own way,” he continued. There are many loans on farms from deceased estates, and widows and children dependent on the interest from mortgages, for instance, are in a worse position than we are today because they are not getting any return.” Regarding the Government nominees for the Dairy Board Mr. Winks expressed the opinion that the idea of the appointment of three-men and the election of another four as recommended by the commission was right. However, it was more important to get • the right men. The constant changes in the present Control Board were of no use to the industry; no sooner was one policy agreed on than it was changed at the whim of the electors. Immediately the commission’s recommendation had been announced, said Mr. Winks, the executive of the federation had sent the following telegram to the Government: The executive of the Federation of Taranaki Co-operative Dairy Factories to-day passed the following resolutions: “That Parliament be urged not to adjourn until it brings down proposals for definite and immediate financial relief to dairy farmers; that as immediate substantial reduction in interest rates is best assistance for dairy farmers the Government be urged to consider the Dairy Commission’s recommendation regarding the Mortgage Corporation with a view to putting same or similar provisions into effect before Parliament adjourns; that in our opinion the maximum interest rate should be 31 per cent.” In reply the Hon. J. G. Coates had stated that the view expressed would be given all possible consideration bjF the Government. He assured the executive that the mortgage problem generally and the reduction of interest charges in keeping with the present prices were prominent in the mind of the Government, and already it had under way provisions to deal with these.

DIFFICULTY REALISED. The Government evidently realised the real difficulties in the matter, said the chairman, perhaps better than the farmers themselves’ did, after the members had all discussed the legislation proposed. Parliament was obviously as alive as the farmers were to the needs of the industry. There were many things that the meeting could consider, said the chairman, but he thought it would be impossible to do in one day more than what was concerned, in the Bill before Parliament. He therefore invited opinions and discussion on such matters. A proposal vzas immediately put before the meeting by Mr. D. L. A. Astbury, Mangatoki. He moved that Parliament be advised that the meeting was of the opinion that the legislation concerning the dairying industry should be held up until such time as the industry had had time to consider it. “When I saw what the Government proposed to do,’’ he said, ‘ I felt that an insult had been given to my ordinary intelligence. I felt that my vote had been taken entirely away from me. We should have a direct say in any legislation concerning the industry.” A great deal of the trouble arising from the Con-

trol Board, he said, had been caused by the fact that it had never truly represented the majority of the farmers of New Zealand. Now it was going to be even less representative. ‘ “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark,’ ” said Mr. Astbury, “when material such as a ton of cheese is placed before the intelligence of the dairy farmer.” He also complained about the expression of the votes of the factory suppliers through the directorate of the company; all the suppliers would thus have to vote for the one man, he said, and it was not right. The Government apparently held that the intelligence of the dairyman was not equal to the task of exercising his vote in an intelligent manner. "Mr. J. B. Hine (Toko) suggested that it. would not be helping anybody in. any way to block the whole matter as Mr. Astbury desired. Mr. Astbury was on the wrong line, he said, in blocking legislation the farmers had been waiting for for 12 months. It would be better for the meeting to consider making recommendations to the Government to show what it wanted.

MR. RUNDLE’S AMENDMENT. Mr. L. J. Rundle, Bell Block, moved an amendment as follows: “Recognising that the commission was set up at the request of the dairy industry, that its personnel was acceptable to the industry, that its investigations covered all aspects of the industry, and that it invited evidence from all possible sources, this meeting of representatives of Taranaki dairy companies approves of the findings of the commission in so far as the broad principles for reform in the industry are concerned, but considers that many of the specific recommendations should be carefully studied before being put into effect, and that they should be brought into operation only gradually, thereby spreading any necessary additional expenditure over a term. This meeting is, however, most emphatically of the opinion that urgeht action is necessary in connection with those of the commisson’s recommendations which promise financial assistance to the industry, and urges the Government to put the necessary legislation to give effect thereto into operation without further delay.” “We must recognise,” Mr. Rundle said, “in perusing the commission’s report that there is in it much that is palatable and much that is not. We must remember that we asked for it and that the findings of the commission are of outstanding merit. We must take some notice of the report.” He considered that the policy of the Dairy Board would not be restricted at all as a result of the new legislation. “I recognise the supreme council proposed as a reciprocal trade commission that can negotiate with other countries, and that is a reasonable idea,” he said. There were men in New Zealand fully capable of controlling the industry efficiently if appointed to that council. The idea of co-operating the various industries in New Zealand under one head had been supported unanimously at the N.D.A. conference 18 months ago in the form of the “Mangatoki remit.” “We have asked for the report, and I think we should, as far as possible, confirm the recommendations in toto,” he concluded. Mr. Astbury: My motion does not prevent the meeting from dealing with various aspects of the report. Mr. A. B. Muggeridge (Alton): I refuse to support that amendment. A resolution of that nature in the hands of the Government to-day is an exceedingly dangerous weapon. The Government will clutch at anything, and that looks like a wholesale approval of the legislation.

BROAD PRINCIPLES. Taking the Bill on its broad principles, said Mr. H. E. Blyde, Lepperton, the thing was quite sound. What was there to fear from the supreme council? All the other producers’ boards would be under the council, and 30 far they had raised no outcry. Public opinion was a strong thing, and even the supreme council would have to take notice of it. If the Government was going to accept any responsibility for the actions of the Dairy Board it was only fair that it should have representation on the board. Regarding the method of election of the other four members of the board, it was rather amusing that the Government should bring down a Bill enforcing election on a non-democratic principle when it was elected on democratic lines itself. However, if the directors of dairy companies had a vote the producers were getting an indirect say, and they were not getting so very far from democratic principles. Hitherto many farmers did not know the men they were voting for; in future the directors would make, it their business to know. It was essential, said Mr. Blyde, that the recommendations made by the commission should first be carefully studied, and then, if approved, should be brought in slowly. A voice: Are you speaking for the Farmers’ Union or for yourself? Mr. Blyde: I am speaking purely as a dairy factory representative. There were principles behind the taking away of the farmer’s right to vote that should not be forgotten, declared Mr. J. P. Marx, Mangatoki. Would the commission recommend that local bodies should elect members of Parliament? he asked. To do' any good the legislation must either reduce the costs on the farm or alternatively increase the price of what was sold, and there was nothing in the commission's recommendations that was going to do either. In his opinion the only way out of the quota problem was for the farmers to see that the duties on British goods were reduced and ultimately eliminated. “If we want to sell to Britain we must buy,” he said. “The farnjers have been neglecting their duty in not having the duties reduced.” Mr. P. A. Hughes criticised Mr. Astbury’s motion as too drastic and Mr. Rundle’s amendment as a little too “wishy-washy.” The whole question of finance, he said, could be summed up in the statement that the farmers could supply butter-fat at 4d per lb. if the price of land were what it should be. The two most important things that the meeting should consider were the appointment of the executive commission of agriculture to take supreme control and the recommendations in the financial part of the report of the Dairy Commission, said Mr. J. S. Tosland. He favoured the latter, hut rejected the first as a violation of the constitution of New Zealand. “We as British subjects should not stand for it,” he said.

SHOULD BE CAREFUL. “We should be very careful what we pass as resolutions here to-day/’ said Mr. W. C. Green, a member of the Dairy Board. “The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have definitely stated that they have no intention of forcing this legislation on us until the industry has had time to consider it. If we are going to pass resolutions either approving or vetoing the whole of the recommendations we are very unwise. The Government has been driven into a corner by the producers; they don’t know what they want and will not be happy till they get it.” Mr. Polson’s subsidy scheme was an awful pitfail, said Mr. Green. The farmer might never be able to repay it; possibly many would be leaving their farms in the next few years. It was leaving a debt to posterity. Mr. J. E. Thomas, Ngaere, suggested withdrawal of the motion and amendment and a series of resolutions on various aspects of the report. Mr. Astbury withdrew the motion but Mr. Rundle declined to withdraw the amendment. (Cries of. “Go on, withdraw it.”) Mr. Rundle: No. I have the right to h-ve the amendment put. The chairman: Then I'll put it

Mr. Rundle: I would like it read again. The secretary read it. Mr. Green: It’s almost a Bill. The. amendment was lost by a big majority on a show of hands. Mr. Muggeridge moved another amendment: “That legislation be introduced giving effect to the recommendations of the commission wherein it urges that financial relief be given to the dairy industry. The present Bill serves no useful purpose at the moment, seeing the commission recommends that the present method of marketing will be continued for the present season.” What had to be considered was the constitution of the industry as recommended by the report, Mr. Dermer said.. From the debates on the Bill he thought that the power of the proposed council would be minimised.

FINDINGS ENDORSED. Endorsement of the findings of the commission was offered by Mr. C. A. Marchant, Cardiff. The fiscal policies of nations had changed out of all recognition, he said, and there would have to be a channel through which trade could be developed. Half the trouble in the industry had been the lack of a head or leader. He was absolutely opposed to a subsidy, as it would only prolong the slump. They would have to accept distasteful conditions,' but they were necessary. New Zealand had said “no” to everything Britain put forward and made no counter suggestion. If New Zealand had nothing to offer. by the time the present agreement expired in September, 1935, Britain could take what steps it deemed fit. He considered the recommendations of the commission instead of being delayed should be put into force.

Mr. E. Gibson, Rahotu, stressed the point that the council of three would have power to take what action it liked without reference to Parliament. Why should the industry accept the assurances given that there would be no extremes? The present Government would not always be in power; would not endorsement of the commission’s report be laying rails down which the Labour Party could travel as it willed? The chairman: I would like to see Mr. Muggeridge’s amendment cut in two parts, as thi amendment deals with two different matters —finance and marketing. Mr. Muggeridge: I have said I would do that. The chairman: I did not know that. The motion, as it became once Mr. Astbury’s motion was withdrawn, was then divided, and the first part stressing the urgency for immediate financial relief was carried unanimously. “Well the second: part of the motion wipes out the Bill, which contains much that I consider worthy of introduction,” the chairman said. He put it to tlie meeting and it was lost decisively. Mr. Hin- then moved that before any

regulations were gazetted concerning the internal workings of the industry they be referred to the Dairy Control Board for adoption or otherwise by resolution. It was seconded by Mr. T. E. Trask, Eltham, and carried. Mr. Hine moved and Mr. Thomas seconded that the council be given full power, subject to the prerogatives of the Government. That the meeting was helping to curtail freedom and favour star chamber methods was Mr. Astbury’s opinion. The motion was carried. The meeting began to break up. Mr. Astbury: I move —- “The meeting is closed,” said the chairman, and everybody took his word for it.