DAIRY BOARD DISPUTE.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17411, 25 May 1928, Page 7

DAIRY BOARD DISPUTE.

MR GOODFELLOW REPLIES. OPPOSES NEW MARKETING PLAN. ••UTTERLY STUPID.” WELLINGTON, Thursday. In the Exporter for.. May Mr W. Goodfellow wrote as follows: —“Who.a i advocating absolute control Mr I Grounds followed a,well-defined path j and simply applied to all New Zea- i land a system of marketing which had been thoroughly tried and proved satisfactory by .•the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company. In that campaign he had the consistent* and solid support, not only of the Waikato, but of the South Auckland Province. Now, however, Mr Grounds is attempting an experiment which, if carried to its logical conclusion, may prove to be an even greater disaster than that which befel the industry with the downfall of absolute control. “This is the considered opinion of the management of the New Zealand ' Co-operative Dairy Company with nearly 20 years’ world-wide marketing experience. “What is the essence of _ the board’s present policy? The initial step of collecting London account sales and obtaining a return of all f.o.b. sales 14 days after shipment may in itself appear quite harmless, but this is in fact only a preliminary to the formation of a national marketing scheme as conceived by the chairman, which, without price-fixing, would land the industry in an intolerable position. Even the initial steps so far made arc cumbersome, dangerous and annoying to the industry.” The board’s demand for the information referred to, Mr Goodfcllow said, he had strenuously opposed, “as it was an utterly stupid idea. The New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company selling policy inaugurated seven years ago was adopted by the board, but subsequently it changed its policy. , ' ~ . “The board has definitely decided not to fix prices nor to pay for an audit. How, then, can a pool be a success?” he asked. “The new scheme, if persisted in, will undoubtedly have a depressing effect on 7 the market and result in lower average prices. A pool without price-fixing places greater power in he hands of Tooley Street and* gives more scope than ever for manipulation. “The New Zealand Amalgamated Dairies Company was formed by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, and is attempting to do by voluntary means what the Control Board has failed to do.” (Mr Grounds’ attack on the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company for failing to co-operate in the new scheme is published on another page.) STATEMENT BY MR. GOODFELLOW. AN INTOLERABLE POSITION. WHAT OF THE FUTURE ? Mr Goodfellow in a preliminary statement which he will amplify later, stated that his position on the board had been intolerable for some time past and it was only a sense of duty to the interests which he represented that had kept him on the board. He considers that the board as at present constituted was an utter farce. It had failed in the purpose for which it wis created, and if it is to do anything worth while it.must be altered to meet changed conditions.' The membership should be reduced to at most six members and their powers confined to shipping contracts, marine insurance contracts, advertising overseas, market reports from London, and the dissemination of news, authoritative information, and activites of educational value, and matters pertaining to cold storage and transit. Mr Goodfellow pointed out that the present system is ext' vagant, and it should be drastically reviewed. During the last financial years the board levied on the industry to the extent of £60,565, of which it expended all but £BSOO. The levy for the present year had been halved, but expenses had not been curtailed, and the balance sheet would show that the reserves had been drawn upon to meet expenses. Mr Goodfellow expressed the opinion Ui-t the scheme of absolute control, as originally brought down was the best scheme for mirk ling New Zealand produce, and he was satisfied that economic pressure would eventually compel the adoption of some such plan as the whole trend in the business world was to force combination. Purchasing groups were combining in order to buy cheaply which was contrary to the interests of the producers, who in self-defence would have to present a united front. ' “Adequate returns to producers will” concluded Mr Goodfellow, “be procured only by business methods and proper oversight at the marketing end. The industry can best help itself by est blishing one or more strong organisations to specialise on the marketing of butter and cheese, for without such special attention, farmers never will get what they should.” WILL MR. GROUNDS RESIGN? THE MISSING NOMINATION. W ELLINGTON, Thursday. When the Dairy Produce Board met -esterday Mr W. A. lorns asked for an explanation regarding the miscarriage of the nomination of Mr B. T. Booker, of Whitford, for No. 1 ward. Mr T. G. Brash, the secretary,. said he cleared the box every morning at 8.30 o’clock, and on Monday, May 21, there was in the box a card for a registered letter. He handed this to the office girl in the ordinary course, and thought no more about it. Shortly after noon the returning officer telephoned, saying that nominations had closed, and that, there would be only one election, but he said there undoubtedly was a nomination “floating round” somewhere from Auckland. Mr H. H. Sterling had been in touch with him and advised him that a nomination had been posted, and he was investigating. About two o’clock the returning officer telephoned and told him not to make any statement, because there was proof that a letter had been posted on Friday in Auckland, and arrived in Wellington on Saturday The post office said it had been put in the Dairy Board’s box. fie (Mr Brash), then remcinbored about the registered letter card and found that the girl had not, picked it up. Shr* was immediately sent to the post oinee and found that, they had then delivered it. to tiie Agricultural Department. The board’s office had never seen the Jotter at aJL it had been addressed to tile returning officer, Control Board election, and not to the private ixix <*£ tow hmr

partment of Agriculture. The only mistake made had been that their gh’l had not cleared the registered mail that morning. Mr Hunt asked if the letters had been cleared on Saturday. Mr Brash said yes, but there had been no card about the registered letter until Monday morning. Mr Hunt: Arc you going to take advantage of the slip? Mr Grounds: I fl.ni not disposed to answer at this hoard table. 1 have already made up my mind as lo what is the right thing to do, and for your information, so as to elucidate the position so far as it can be elucidated, I shall he meeting the North Auckland people next Monday and shall be piepared to make a statement after consulting them there. Mr Timpany said he would suggest that as Mr Booker had been very unfortunate it would do nobody any harm and would be very much to the advantage of the chairman, and would please the members of the board, if the chairman were to withdraw Ids own nomination and reopen the seat again. Mr Iline said this .was quite impracticable. He had every, sympathy with Mr Booker and the chairman, who was in a very unpleasant position, but if Mr Grounds withdrew his nomination there would he no election, as the board .would have to make a recommendation to the Minister. Mr Goodfellow said Mr Sterling had investigated the position and confirmed that, statement. The discussion then closed. export licenses. A FURTHER DISCUSSION. WELLINGTON, Thursday. Export licenses were further discussed by the Dairy Troduoe Board yesterday. With some others Mr W. Goodfellow, managing director of tilt New Zealand Co-operative Dan s Com panv, Limited, was opposed to the disclosure of certain information to the board. The board, at its meeting in March decided that all companies must conform to export license regulations, Mr Goodfellow objecting. The matter again came before the April meeting. The board then decided that the clauses in the export licence to which objection had been taken should be held in abeyance for tiie rest of the season so fai as they applied to f.o.b. sales outside Great Britain and Europe. At yesterday’s meeting the chairman said it was incumbent upon the board to say what course was to be taken with companies refusing to comply with the terms of the board’s licence. Mr Corrigan said some of the companies standing out had given the excuse that they would not comply because the New Zealand Co-opeYativc Dairy Company was not doing so. Ho suggested moving that steps lie takeu to cancel their licenses. Attitude of Minister. The chairman said lie had waited upon the Minister regarding the necessity, in view of tiie board’s previous decision, of revoking the licence of these dairy companies. The Minister s reply was that before any action could be takeu by himself he would need to have an intimation from the board outlining the full facts and the board s recommendation. The Minister was fully seized of the position from Lhc board’s point of view and had intimated that he had issued licences on tiie hoard’s recommendation, and lie would consequently require the board to make a specific request before lie could take the course of revoking those licences. There was no other course but for the board lo decide what was to be done^ Mr lorns moved that the matter remain in abeyance and come up for review next season. The secretary, Mr Brash, advised tint out of approximately 500 companies “l New Zealand three had given nothing, and the other three had given only partial returns. Mr Corrigan said the question was whether these six factories should dominate tho Dairy Board or not. Legal Opinions Differ. Mr W. D. Hunt seconled Mr lorns’ motion. The position plainly was that the board wanted certain conditions put in the licence. Their solicitors told them in plain language that the board had no power to do what they wanted, but the board was not satisfied, and rushed off to another solicitor, who gave a contrary opinion. Thus they had. two solicitors with two different opinions. They knew the matter had been put before other legal authorities and they confirmed the first opinion. There was more legal talent at tiie back of that opinion than at the back of the opinion on which the board had acted. Mr Hine said the board had rendered itself absolutely impotent through its action at the last meeting. As regards the Minister, he was now in a most happy position. If the board passed a resolution to-day asking him to revoke the licence of, say, the Joil Company, what would the Minister say? He would say, “You declined to ask me iO revoke the licences generally at the last meeting, and I am not going to be a party to this sort of thing. I will not penalise one or two companies.” Tiie board had removed the Minister from a very delicate position. Mr Goodfellow said Mr Hine had put the position very clearly. Mr D. Fulton agreed with Mr Hine that they could not throw the responsibility on the Minister. The board decided to defer action until the meeting in July.