GROUP MARKETING PLAN

Taranaki Daily News, 23 December 1935, Page 6

GROUP MARKETING PLAN

OPPOSITION IN TARANAKI PROTEST SENT TO MR. SAVAGE. RAHOTU COMPANY’S REASONS. MISUNDERSTANDING OF SCHEME. As was reported in the Daily News on Friday last, there is marked hostility on the part of some North Taranaki dairy companies to the proposed group marketing propolis of the Dairy Board. A letter of protest has been sent to the Prime Minister, the Hon. M. J. Savage, by the Rahotu Dairy Company, and it is stated the protest will have the support of several factories. Bell Block, Brooklands, North Taranaki, Moa and Patua are said to be among the companies which are not prepared to support the scheme on the information so far vouchsafed by the board. , The text of the Rahotu company s letter to Mr. Savage is as follows:— “Our reasons for opposing the proposed new marketing scheme outlined by the Dairy Control Board to the meeting of the board and its delegates in September last are briefly as follows:— (1) The scheme was sprung upon the industry without notice, it was incomplete, and had not received consideration by either the industry or its representatives; it was explained to Press representatives as a definite plan which was to be put into operatioAi, at a meeting held the night before it was submitted to the conference for confirmation. The id ea that the scheme was the result of a definite decision by the board and commission was allowed to permeate the conference, with the result that many delegates were led to believe it was useless offering any opposition, which, coupled with the fact that it was imperfectly understood, led to its adoption owing to misconception of its scope and meaning. (2) The conference was led to believe the plan was that of Mr. Davis, the board’s London representative, recommended specially by him to meet prevailing conditions, whereas it is now known that Mr. Davis recommended voluntary groups, and that in spite of this and Mr. Davis’ warning that there was still a great deal of opposition caused by the 1926-27 experiment in compulsory marketing to live down in Britain, the board added to the plan the element of compulsion. (3) That the proposal by compulsorily taking possession of the private property of individual suppliers held and administered on their behalf by their own lawfully established co-operative companies is a gross violation of British law, justice and fair play, amounting to confiscation which can only be warranted by extreme national emergencies. That the arbitrary cancellation of companies brands and the duties of factory directors, both established and authorised by law and long standing custom is illegal. (4) That previous attempts to control or over-ride ordinary trading custom and conditions have been detrimental to the industry, and that at a time .when trade and prices are improving, it is extremely bad business to launch another hampering scheme, and that tne industry can be best served by careful but limited supervision to insure free marketing on an honest and honourable basis. (5) That the suggested limitation of merchants handling New Zealand dairy produce is suicidal, as the more widely an article of food is known and distributed the better it is for producer and consumer alike. Who tan say that the small merchant of to-day may not be the big firm of to-morrow or vice-versa? (6) That no mandate for any such drastic change has ever been given by producers, and that before any such innovation is brought into operation, it should, in common justice, be compiled, explained and submitted to the direct vote of the producers, the parties most concerned, and confirmed by a substantial majority of all entitled to vote.”