DAIRY BOARD STEPS BACK

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1928, 30 October 1926, Page 5

DAIRY BOARD STEPS BACK

LONDON importers to be consulted REGARDING PRICE. CABLE FROM PRIME MINISTER. BOARD RETAINS POWER TO VETO DECISIONS MADE IN LONDON. (From N.Z. Times.) «s evident after the meeting of ew Zealand Dairy Produce Conoard, which was held in Wellington on Wednesday, that the dairy industry of New Zealand is faced with an extremely serious position. This is emphasised, not only by the decision of the Board (which in itself has more than ordinary significance), but by a cablegram from the Prime Minister in London, who advises that anything in the nature of price-fixing will be detrimental to the interests of the New Zealand producer. The Board, it appearp, has agreed to confer with the London merchants, but, -at the same time, reserves the right to override any decision that may be arrived at. When the Dairy Control Board met it was expected that the meeting would discuss a notice of motion which had been tabled by Mr J. R. Corrigan, to the effect that the resolutions already on the boohs of the Board in relation to price-fixing at Home be rescinded. It was a surprise, therefore, when it was learned that this resolution was not discussed, but that a motion—which amounted to something in the nature of a compromise—was unanimously agreed to. The Board decided to instruct its London agency to call a meeting of all the importers of New Zealand blitter and cheese and invite them to elect a committee of three merchants to confer with the London agency and manager, for the purpose of valuing butter and cheese for the time being, rt; is; provided that if both producing

members of the London agency dissent from the opinion of the other members' as to the price to be put on the produce by this joint committee, then it shall be left to the London agency to determine the value. The New Zealand Dairy Board, however, reserves the right at all times to override the decisions of this joint committee, if, in the opinion of the members of the Board, the action of the committee is not in the interests of the producers. The meetings of this joint committee are to be convened from time to time by the.manager or two members of the joint committee. No time is stipulated for the joint committee to ' meet, it being left to the trend of the market at the Home end. MR COATES’ MESSAGE. FULL CONSIDERATION NOT GIVEN TO IT. This decision provides for a variation of the price-fixing policy of the Board, and it was conditional' upon its acceptance that Mr Corrigan withdrew his notice of motion. His attitude appears to have been that it ivould be far better to have unanimity. . among the members 6f the Board, and I v secure the result which he desired through a diverse channel than to have the members of the Board divided upon an issue which, besifies being vital, was being watched intently by those interested in®the market at Home. NOT THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM. Although it was considered among certain factions that this resolution will institute a system upon a basis equivalent to that operating with Australian produce, others interested in the question point out that there is a marked difference in the respective positions. In regard to Australia, advice is given as to the amount of produce which is in store, and also whether it is wise to sell with the market in its existing state at the particular ’ time. No effort is made to, dictate the price to the market, as seems to have been provided for in the latest j decision of the Board. MR: COATES’ CABLEGRAM. It was estimated. that of the eight members who att&nded the Board meeting five would have been in favour of Mr- Corrigah’s notice of motion had it been pressed to a division and discussed fully. The pertinent question is then asked: Why was it not brought forward, and the feeling of the mern--4 bers tested one way or the other ? * It is recalled that Mr Corrigan (presumably) wished for unanimity among the members of the Board as well as satisfaction among the, producers, the exporters, the importers at Home, and the consumers. If that were so, it becomes more difficult to square with a cablegram which was received in Wellington from the Prime Minsiter in London, and which is understood to have been discussed but slightly at the meeting. This cablegram; from Mr Coates stated that: he had received a large deputation representing, all' interests in the trade,- with three definite objections;: They were against; absolute v- cfcntrait they protested; against; pricefixing;: they objected: to the policy of the' Board’s London manager (Mr J. B. Wright). In response to the first, Mr Coates said,the trade was prepared to accept eontta# providing it could equitably workHh with it. In reference to the second, he specifically stated that anything iri the nature of price-fixing would bo detrimental to the interests of-the producers here; and, regarding the third, he said it appeared evident that the trade did not possess confidence in Mr Wright as London manager for the Dairy Control Board. On this point Mr Coates suggested, in effect, that it would be in the interests of the producers to give the fullest consideration to the wishes of the trqde. : NOT FULLY DISCUSSED., v-r Although this cablegram contained a message with; first-hand information from the head of the New Zealand Government, who has gained an insight ,'into the working of. things at Home,- it: is reported that the members- of l the; Board; would not' discuss it under its: separate: headings:. The' message; appears to have reached the meeting at a somewhat- belated time j in the, proceedings, and full consideration was not given to its purport. Summarised, the position after the Board’s resolution would seem to be this: The London. manager remains,

in spite of the antagonism of the trade; the Board retains absolute power to veto any decision which may be made contrary to its interests; and the determination of prices, instead of being in the hands of one man, is placed in the hands of several, who have not the final say as to what shall be done. CRASH PREDICTED. In the light of this position the expressed opinion of one who is closely associated with the export of produce —and incidentally a producer—and ■who is recognised as an authority on the question, is illuminating. He said that if the present state of things existed for six months there would be a crash. “ The trade simply cannot stand it,” he declared. “At the present time butter is at Is per lb—back to the figure at which it was before the war —and advances on-cheese are reaching only s§d. The Board will have to take a step back. The farther it pursues its present policy the greater will be that step; and incidentally the greater the detriment to the country. “ It is evident from the cables that have been published in the papers recently that there is a great deal of antagonism among ths trade at Home to the Board. What is the logical result? The result is that Australia is up to us in price, Argentina and other countries are following close, and are threatening to get better money for their produce, and the market is gradually but surely closing in around us. I repeat—and repeat with emphasis—that at the ’ present rate there will be within six months a crash unprecedented in the history of the country.” Further interest is added by the declaration of a prominent exporter’s representative and a reliable banking authority, both of whom stated that, whereas good advances were made for produce when the market was steady, it is estimated that owing to the slump reclamations from the advances will approximate £300,000.