MILK SUPPLY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20067, 26 March 1935, Page 9

MILK SUPPLY

DEPUTATION TO COUNCIL

NO ACTION TAKEN A letter in regard to the milk supply of the Borough of Timaru was before a meeting of the Timaru Borough Council last night. The letter, which was signed by Mr G. Waller, chairman of the Timaru Milk Vendors’ Associai tion, read:— j The Timaru Milk Vendors’ Association has again decided to approach i you on the question of the borough milk supply. In doing this we feel that the efforts of all interested in these questions under review were deprived of the opportunity for further exploring the possibilities of a scheme similar to that contained in the Auckland Milk Act, by the somewhat dramatic events which terminated all possibility for further discussion at that time. However, we now feel that the time is again opportune for discussing the matter and to be brief, I set out the following reasons why this matter should be re-opened:— (1) That the rescinding resolution passed by your Council did not give a full expression of opinion of the Council. (g) That one councillor, who we believe would have opposed the resolution was absent in Auckland when the vote was taken. (3) That the vote in favour of the rescinding resolution had, under the circumstances set out above, only a majority of one. (4) That we believe the mover of the rescinding resolution acted under a misapprehension. (5) That the Milk Vendors’ Association is not aware of any fundamental objection having been raised against the Timaru District Milk Bill. (6; That the Milk Vendors’ Association is prepared to show that the passing of the Timaru Milk Bill would actually be in the interests of consumers. (7) That the Milk Vendors’ Association is prepared to agree to certain safeguards, to be outlined later, for the protection of the rights of consumers. Further Conference Sought In further support of this petition, we would refer to your Worship and Council to the reports submitted by the chairman of the Council’s Milk Committee after the first and only conference held with representatives from the Levels Council and Milk Vendors’ Association. That report merely recounts the difficulties under which dairymen were labouring. It concluded with a recommendation to the Council not to support a Bill on similar lines to the Auckland Act. Not one concrete reason was given for the recommendation, nor was any form of reasoning used to justify the recommendation. The Milk Vendors’ Association now asks that your Council will hear in open Council a deputation from the Association in support of a further conference. Previous Resolution The rescinding resolution referred to in the letter, which was moved by Cr. P. C. Vinnell, and seconded by Cr. W. G. Tweedy, read: “That a conference be held between the milk vendors, milk producers, the Borough Council and the Levels County Council, to discuss all aspects of the milk supply of Timaru, and the Mayor to call the conference at a suitable date, be and is hereby rescinded.” The motion was carried by five votes to four. Cr. F. B. Hawkey was the councillor who was' absent. Deputation to Council In support of the letter a deputation from the Milk Vendors’ Association waited on the Council. It comprised Messrs G. Waller, F. Holland, C. H. Lennon and R. Moore. Mr Lennon said that there had been a misunderstanding in regard to the proposed Bill constituting a milk supply district in Timaru. They received a communication from the Rev. Clyde Carr, M.P., asking if they wished the proposed Bill to go forward, and Chi-y had agreed to this because they had not considered that it would prejudice their negotiations with the Council. The proposed district was within a radius of 10 miles from the Timaru Post Office, and the Bill concerned only milk sold for human consumption. Milk sold for ice-cream did not come within the scope of the Bill. There was only one vendor delivering milk in Timaru who was outside the ten mile radius, and to cover this case it was proposed to insert a clause in the Bill to the effect that no one who had been retailing milk in Timaru for twelve months before the passing of the Bill should be affected by it. There was an imaginary grievance that as a result of the Bill the public would be penalised, but the price of milk would be fixed by the milk council, on which there would be two representatives of the borough, one of the Levels County and two of the producer-vendors. It was proposed to insert a clause to the effect that if the public were dissatisfied after the Bill had been in operation for the term agreed on, that the Council should have power to take a poll. It was freely stated that the dairymen were out to fleece the public by exhorbitant prices, but the fixing of the prices would not be in their hands, excepting through their representatives on the milk council. They asked the council to take a reasonable view of the matter, because there were many dairymen who were just hanging on to see the result of the negotiations, and some had already gone out of business. Cr. P. C. Vinnell asked what the idea of the deputation was. If they were requesting a further conference with the Council, then the resolution on the books would have to be rescinded. The deputy-Mayor (Cr G. Benstead) who was occupying the chair during the temporary absence of the Mayor, said that the Council had agreed to hear the deputation. Cr Vinnell said that the Council had already decided to dissociate itself from the furtherance of a Bill along the lines of the Auckland Bill. Cr. Benstead: Do you suggest that after we have allowed the deputation to come in, on our mistake, that we should ask them to go outside?

Cr W. G. Tweedy said that he hoped Cr. Vinnell would not press his point and so obstruct the deputation from placing information before the Council. Cr. Vinnell said that it had been suggested that now was the time to come along because it was near the election, and they might make councillors toe the line. He had never denied the milkmen the right to organise and get the best for their labours, but the correct procedure for the deputation would have been to ask the Council to rescind its previous resolution and then come forward with information. The chairman said that someone had to make a decision and he would rule that the deputation be received, and that they continue without further discussion.

"Need for Control." Mr Holland then spoke briefly, stating that it must be obvious to everyone that there was need for some form of control in the business. Some milkmen had said they did not know where they were going' to get sufficient milk to maintain supplies during the winter, and quite a number had already gone out of business. The pig market had also gone up considerably, and some dairymen found it better to use the milk for the pigs rather than bring it into town at the prices ruling. Was it a fair thing that they should have to carry on without protection against undercutting? Cr. Vinnell asked why the milkmen had not become united before they came along and asked the Council to do something for them. Mr Holland explained the price-cut-ting by stating that 10 years ago there were 34 licensed milkmen in Timaru. Whereas to-day there were 80. The other 50 had had to get their business by cutting in on the prices of the others, and so it had gone on. The milk had to be sold. It could not be Stored like boots and other things. Cr. Vinnell asked if the deputation thought that it was a fair thing' for a public body like the Council to grant a monopoly to a business owned by private individuals. Mr Holland said he could only answer that by asking another question. Was it fair that the price should be put up to 8d now because they could not get it in the summer? The chairman asked if it was fair that the 18,000 residents of Timaru should be controlled by three outside representatives. Mr Lennon: You must allow a little for the honesty of the men on the milk council. At this stage the deputation retired, and the Mayor resumed the chair. After a brief discussion, Cr. Foote moved and Cr. Hawkey seconded, that a copy of the Bill be circulated to councillors, and that the matter be discussed at the next meeting, but the motion was defeated by six votes to four.