CONTROL OF THE CITY MILK SUPPLY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18985, 3 February 1930, Page 7

CONTROL OF THE CITY MILK SUPPLY.

QUESTION RAISED AT DAIRYMEN’S MEETING

The question of the municipalisation of the city’s milk supply came up on Saturday night at a smoke concert tendered to Mr B. Grant, chief inspector of stock and dairies on the occasion of his transfer from Christchurch.

Mr IT. Armstrong. M.P., in responding to the toast of Parliament, said it was well known that the Wellington supply had been municipalised. What * was good for Wel-

lington, however, might not be good for Christchurch. There it had proved to be in the best interests not only of the public, but also of the suppliers. Now the suppliers were on a better footing than they had ever been before. Steps would

have to be taken to organise the

Christchurch milk supply, good and all as it was. He wanted to see it better organised and when he said that, he had in view the health of the community. Recently he had made a tour of Australia. Adelaide was situated something like Wellington, but was very much worse from the fact that the milk had to be brought from much farther afield. A few years ago milk could hardly be procured at all and then at verj'- high prices. In Adelaide it was not the City Council which took the matter in hand but the Farmers’ Union. There they had control and special milk trains covering hundreds of miles. This had worked wonders for the interests of the farmers. What they had done for the farmers, however, was nothing to what they had done for the health of the community. He suggested that the Farmers* Union in Christchurch should take steps to organise on the same lines, and that an investigation should be “made by their representatives into the position in Adelaide. If they did not do what was suggested, municipality would have to do it. As a Labour member he believed in national-

isation and municipalisation but he would not be a party to anything if it was going to cause an injury to anyone. There was no reason why all those concerned should not put their heads together, meet in a spirit of co-operation and formulate a scheme that ■would be favourable to all. If it was a case of ramming something down the throats of others who did not want it, it was a different matter.

Mr H. Holland, M.P., disagreed with Mr Armstrong, stating that he was not in favour of the municipalisation of the milk supply. When Mr Grant was speaking he said that if the council really wished to take up the matter seriously it could not do better than offer, sa} r , a subsidy of 50 per cent, on cows rejected for showing signs of tuberculosis. If the dairyman paid £l6 for an animal and got only £6 back from the Government when it was rejected, it was not a fair thing. The public was getting the benefit of it and they should pay. If the council was earnest and sincere in its endeavour to improve the milk supply the first thing to do was to ensure that the herds were free from disease. If they took the action mentioned it would be a material help to the department and to the farmers.