DAIRY CONTROL QUESTION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19842, 17 May 1927, Page 8

DAIRY CONTROL QUESTION

PREMIER REPLIES TO CRITICS

The Whole Position Reviewed—Mr Holland’s Charges Answered— Leader of Opposition and Shipping Strike—Position in London Explained—Friendly Co-operation Essential.

[Per Press Awociation.] DARGAVILLE, May 16. A statement on the subject of dairy control was made by the Prime Minister during the course of his speech here last night, when he took occasion to reply to the criticism which had been levelled at him in connection with it. Mr Coates said: —

I have already issued two statements to the country bearing on this suject. These, I thought., were sufficiently explicit in regard to my attitude and action. During my visit to London in the latter part of last year, notwithstanding these statements a campaign of misrepresentation regarding myself and the Government is being persistently carried on by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland). In speeches which he has recently been making he repeats, parrot-like, certain information gained second-hand, I presume, from certain sources and on his information he places an interpretation which, in his opinion, will best suit his own political cause. His object in so doing is perfectly plain to every onlooker, and that is to discredit myself in the eyes of the farming community. As some of his opinions may be swallowed by a section of our producers, I deem it to be- my duty to devote a portion of my remarks by way of reply. Mr Paterson’s Position. Mr Holland asks the country to believe that the Prime Minister has never been honest in the part he took, or in the votes he recorded in connection with the dairy produce legislation for which he was responsible to Parliament, and it would appear that he bases his conclusions almost solely upon the appointment of Mr Paterson as a member of the London agency of the New Zealand Dairy Producers’ Board. From Mr Holland’s utterances he seems to be far better posted in the doings of Mr Paterson and his motives than I have ever been aware of. I hold no brief for Mr Paterson, but I wish to be fair to him. I do not believe that Mr Paterson would for one moment lend himself to any ulterior motive. He has stated his reasons for coming to his conclusion regarding the advisability of not pursuing at the time the policy of price-fixation which had been decided upon by the Board. To assert that I was in league with Mr Paterson, or he with me, is untrue and unjust. The Premier’s Cable. My own connection with the matter arose only after I became convinced of the serious position that the New Zealand dairy producer might be placed in by any move likely to place his product at a disadvantage as compared with similar products in the Home market. Here, may I state that my conclusions were arrived at after information had come into my possession from many reliable sources. There are those who say that Mr Paterson’s cable to the Board was sent with my approval. Such a statement is incorrect. The cable referred to was not sent with my approval, though I knew of it. The telegram sent by myself to the Government of New Zealand expressed by far the bulk of opinions which, as I have already said, had been conveyed to me from very many reliable sources. For anyone to suggest that trade influences in i?n-dan<l were not powerful is to ignore deliberately what was obvious. The real issue, as 1 saw matters, turned on the question: Could the New Zealand Dairy Control Board win through with their policy of price-fixation? Marketing /Factors. Without traversing all the factors, which no doubt the Board realised, one may mention two main causes likely to be very difficult at the outset. First of all, there was the fact that, at the time the Board assumed control, a very large quantity of butter was held in store in London by dairy companies. This was butter which had probably missed the season, and was being held for higher prices and likely to come on to the market at any time. Secondly, there was the undeniable fact that definite hostility existed amongst the trade and, indeed, had been spread to the retailers and the consumers. I challenge any person with a knowledge of the position founded on fact to controvert the conclusions at which I arrived. Having then formed my views and, in spite of possible misinterpretation on the part of the producers, I decided to acquaint the Government in the Dominion of the position as I saw it, especially as I had. like most people, a keen appreciation of the extent to which the Dominion’s prosperity is linked up with the dairy industry.

I was also desirious that the representatives of the producers in the Dominion should not without fuller consideration follow a course which ample and reliable evidence had shown was full of risk to the position of our dairy produce on the Home market. What the Premier Said. It has been stated that I was hostile to the Board’s manager in London. To remove any such wrong impression I need only quote the following extract from the verbatim report of my conference with the members of the Board and representatives of the Trade in London on November 8 last. This is what I said: “I am well acquainted with the New Zealand Dairy Co-operative Association in New Zealand, its personnel and its directors. So far as the directors are concerned, and I think the suppliers also, they have absolute confidence in their representative in London. There is no doubt about that. They have absolute and complete confidence in their London manager, that is, Mr Wright.” I should also like to quote some of my remarks regarding co-operative marketing, concerning which I notice some of my opponents have been industriously misrepresenting me. These are some of the views I expressed at

the meeting to which I have already referred. “First of all, I want to tell the delegation that, so far as control is concerned, and as it affects New Zealand, it has conic and has come to stay. The next thing is: how can wo best overcome any difficulty or misunderstanding that exists here in connection with the supply of New Zealand butter on to the market? My whole object is to sec if we cannot get down to the points of this agreement and ascertain whether it is possible to overcome these difficulties. So long as the farmer desired to combine in order to handle his produce up to a certain point, it had to be taken for granted, and without argument, that he would do so. It must be remembered that there is no harder working section of the community than the dairy farmers. The great bulk of export from New Zealand is from co-operative companies produced by co-operative effort. I want to say that the Government in no sense controlled or interfered with the Board. The Government had not come into it. The producer asked for certain legislation. Parliament agreed to that legislation by a large majority in each case. That was not to say, however, that there were no opponents to the Board, or to the idea of the Board. I am perfectly convinced that, the legislation will stand in some form or other. The idea being just as I have already stated, namely, in connection with the handling of the produce up

to some point.” I have never suggested that price fixation was the cause of lower prices. The difficulty the Board found itself up against in London was undoubtedly the large quantity of butter found in store there, and the fact that the trade in England knew the position thoroughly well, being thus in a position to ignore the Board’s offerings, if they thought fit. In addition to that it was quite certain there was a very genuine opposition to the policy of price fixation. Question for Mr. Holland. I have been much interested in one feature of the speeches recently by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is his sudden professed anxiety for the welfare of the primary producers. In this connection may I ask him one question: “Why did he not display the same concern some eighteen months ago in connection with the transport of the farmers’ produce to the Home markets?” On that occasion, if I remember rightly, Mr Holland was not so anxious as to the effect of the disastrous shipping strike on the dairy producer of this country. I can say deliberately to-day that one of the main causes of so much of our butter accumulating in store in London last year was a direct result of the shipping strike which led to a complete disorganisation of vital transport arrangements. In addition there was the great coal strike at Home, which had a very direct bearing on the demand for our dairy produce. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr Holland said nothing and did nothing that contributed to a reasonable attitude being pursued in that connection, nor do I remember any public repudiation by him of the notorious Mr Cook, whom we know- now was closely in touch with Moscow throughout that lamentable industrial crisis. Dangerous Proposals. • In my opinion there never at any I time has been greater need for clear thought and careful action in the light of circumstances surrounding the dairy industry. I suggest that our citizens, whether in country or town, should pause very carefully before seriously listening to the proposals of the Labour Party which Mr Holalnd enunciates in, the direction of Government control of the handling and distribution of food stuffs. Such proposals are closely related to the already notorious planks of the Socialist platform, namely the socialisation of the means of production distribution, and exchange, a policy, in my judgment, fraught with danger particularly to an agricultural and pastoral couu try like New Zealand. Friendly Co-operation. In concluding my* remarks on this subject, I desire to repeat what I have already told the country, namely, that the opposition to the policy of minimum price fixation was overwhelming, not merely by traders, but by consumers. There was also, in addition, imminent danger of losing that friendly co-operation which was so essential for the successful marketing of our produce. 1 feel sure that even Mr Grounds, who was staying at the same hotel in London as myself, will admit that, on all occasions when we conferred together, I was as keenly desirous as he was that the Board’s operations in London should be successful, and in the best interests of our dairy producers, and that my counsel was always at his disposal whenever he sought it.

As one who has followed larming all his life, in which dairy farming has played no small part, I think my fellow producers will do me the justice of believing that, both as Prime Minister and as one of themselves, I am actuated only by a conscientious desire to enhance the welfare of the farmer and all other sections of tho people. A Suggestion. I take this opportunity of adding that, in the event of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Export Control Act again coming before Parliament, I am of the opinion that the word “Control’’ should be altered. This term creates an impression that tends tu prejudice our products in certain market's. I suggest as an alternative that a more suitable term would be the “New Zealand Dairy Producers’ Cooperative Marketing Board,” or some other more appropriate designation.