DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18366, 27 April 1925, Page 6

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

ADDRESS BY MR GROUNDS.

To hear an address on the subject of dairy produce control b}' Mr W. Grounds, chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board, a public meeting was held on Friday afternoon in the Chamber of Commerce. There was an attendance of about 50, most of whom wcro citv business men. Mr J. D Hall, chairman of tho North Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Fanners' Union, presided.

"Act of Thought." Mr Grounds said that those engaged in the dairy industry had felt thcyweTe not getting enough out of their efEorts in the matter of marketing. It had been asserted that an undertaking had been given that complete control would not be given to the Board. This, however was not in accordance with fact, and was more an act of thought than of remembrance. He was glad to see so many members of the Chamber of Commerce present., because any attention focussed on the question by commercial interests was welcomed. Ho had noticed the criticism emanating from certain Chambers of Commerce, but the claim that the producers had only a nominal interest in tho scheme was due to the fact that up to the present only _ a nominal interest had been taken in. the question by producers. There were some said they were genuinely alarmed at tho Board taking over such a huge undertaking involving a turnover of £20,000,000, but he was satisfied that much of the criticism that had been published on the question was contradictory. Control Necessary.

Some of those who were opposed to tho operations of the Board had decided that a certain amount of control was necessary. With respect to a proposal for educating farmers on matters connected with the industry, he knew that to improvo the quality of the herds would increase the output of dairy produce to a great extent, but ho maintained that such would only intensify the problem, as it would then be harder to find an outlet for tho greater amount of products unless there was a system of control established.

He realised tho valuo of co-operation in the matter of improving the industry, and ho considered that seeing such an advance had been made in recent years in the technical knowledge of the industry, it was essential that more attention should bo paid to the marketing of the produce. New Zealand was now bracketed with Denniark for best quality butter and with Canada for cheese.

New Zealand's Position. It was necessary to consider seriously the question of enabling New Zealand to maintain her present high position in that connexion. During its visit to Britain the overseas delegation of the Board had been of the opinion that much of the deterioration in dairy produce was due to the mishandling of it in Britain, whereas a good deal of the trouble.was due to the carriage of produce from New Zealand. It was wrong to assert that Neyr Zealand cpuld not maintain the quality of its butter all the yoar round. As a matter of fact the delegation, as a result of- its investigations, had ascertained that New Zealand produce could keep well enough to hold its own against that of hny other country in the world. It was essential, continued Mr Grounds, that a superfine grade should be established and that only superfine and first grade butter should be shipped out of New Zealand under a national brand. He referred to the methods of marketing in the United States and Canada, and stated that those methods had resulted in a movement for cooperation, In Canada there was a keen desire at the present time to follow the lead of New Zealand in the matter of dairy produce control. Mr Grounds related the efforts made by the overseas delegation in Tooley street aiid other directions when ijiaking its investigations regarding marketing.

Economic position. There was no desire on the part of the Boqrd to fix the prices without Tegard to the economic position. Tho Board was aware of the importance of economy, and was of the opinion that it "was necessary for unification of effort to get thg best prices for New Zealand produce. Enquiries were also made in Denmark and Australia by the delegation. He asked what else the delegation could have donq to get data on which to base its conclusions. He submitted that the delegation had gone forward on the right lines and done all possible to benefit the marketing of the produce. He believed that the Dominion was destined to become a land of small holdings, and it was, therefore, necessary that an effort should be madp to find the best outlet for the additional amount of butter and cheese that was -bound to bo produced. New Markets. The Board recognised the necessity for finding new markets in various parts of the world, and was of the opinion that to do so in a practical manner it was essential to do the business through a centralised board. Individual effort was not sufficient to meet the position. Tho development of the new centres of distribution and the stabilisation of quality could only be epured by a centralised control, which was also necessary to ensure a steady and adequate distribution. The Board considered that no effective eontrol could be seenred unless centralised in that authority. It was essential for the Board to have the power to divert supplies from distributors who were proved to be inefficient to those who - were efficient, bo as to obtain the best results for the producer. Ho maintained that the manufacturers of superfine quality had not been receiving their just reward for their efforts. The small factories -under the system of control would receive a fair price for their superfine products. Dealing with the question of advances Mr Grounds said that these would be made against the commodity, and he was certain that there would be no difficulty in this connexion as suggested by certain critics. The greater the stabilisation the less would be the risk respecting advances against produce. Board's Main Object. The main object of the Board was to organise a syßtom of source in connexion with the distribution of New Zealand produce in Great Britain which would keep pace with the increasing development in the Dominion.

Questions. Mr C. P. Agar asked if under the system of control the dairy factories would receive the same rate of advance as under the present system. Mr Grounds replied in the affirmative. Did he not realise, asked Mr Agar, that by withholding supplies from the market the Board would require to have practical control of the merchants' finance.

Mr Grounds replied that he was fnlly satisfied it could be satisfarftorily arranged for. Mr Agar asked ii Mr Grounds believed ia the principle of the majority <Mex*zng Kjabuxtty ;with sua actios they

did not wish to take, an action that would take out of their hands tho control of their own property. Mr Grounds said that civilisation imposed on responsible bodies the necessity of carrying out certain things. Any system of organisation in the interests of those immediately concerned must be in the interests of the majority of those promoting the industry. He did not call it dictation. In factory control there was recognition of the necessity of regulations in connexion with the evolution of the industry. It had been _ found necessary to have power over irreconoilables or anybody else opposed to the development of the scheme. In that event, would it not be right, Mr Agar asked, for the citizens of the Dominion to take possession of the farms of the producers in tho interests of the whole. Mr Grounds answered in the negative. The industry, he said, was taking over the distribution of tho produce because it was evident it could secure better results than under the present haphazard system. If the majority of the people of the Dominion took over all tho farms he was sure they could not farm them as well as the farmers themselves. (Hear, hear.) Answering further questions, Mr Grounds said he favoured tho present system of electing the Board. The price to the consumer in New Zealand depended on tho London parity, but the Board was not looking forward to a higher average price in London, but to a saving as a result of bettor handling and by eliminating tho speculation after the produce left New Zealand. The Board would thus effect a better return without increasing tho price to Now Zealand consumers. Ho had not 6een Professor CondlifFe's paper on the subject of dairy produce control, so could not answer any questions conecrning it. He would, however, be prapared to do so when he had read tho paper.

Question by Chamber. A number of questions submitted to Mr Grounds by the Chamber of Commerce were replied tqj, as follows: — Tho Board had believed it would get better results for the produce by compulsory control. It had not felt called on to confer with tho commercial interests of New Zealand regarding the disposition of produce, but had conferred with commercial interests at Home, and was satisfied it had adopted a wise and sound courso. The necessity of control was shown by the disabilities in marketing produce. He did not think it misleading to describe compulsory control as co-operation. It was the natural development of the cooperative system to turn attention to the principles of marketing, Denmark had no compulsory measures, but had secured unification enabling that country to get similar resnlts to those aimed at in the Dominion. With respect to a question as to the reimbursing of suppliers of produce whose property might be compulsorily sold or withhold from sale, he answered that the Board did not dissociate itself from the interests of tho industry. Whatever action the Board took would be on behalf of the industry, and not as an isolated or independent body. The matter of the retentipn of produce would be decided by the collective opinions of the Board' 9 representatives in London, and of the London merchants. | Vote of Thanks. | Mr Agar moved that while thanMng Mr Grounds for his address the meeting did'not think that the information obtained by the Board as disclosed in the address warranted the enforcement j of a compulsory system of dairy control. I The motion was seconded by Mr P. Kimber (Ohoka). Mr G. Gardiner moved as an amendment, which was seconded by Mr J. Carr (Methven), that Mr Grounds be thanked for his address, which the speaker described as one of the most lucid and able ho had ever listened to. Mr AgaT was induced by the chairman to withdraw his motion, the seconder agreeing, and the motion was then put to the meeting and carried. Mr Agar said that in years to come the wisdom of those who opposed the scheme would be proved to have been correct. Mr Grounds said he felt sure that before long it would be seen that the setting up of the Board had been for the benefit of the industry.

dairy and meat boards. SPEECHES BY REPRESENTATIVES. (raiss ASSOCIATION TXLECBAW.) MASTERTON, April 26. A farmers' rally, organised bv the Wairarapa Provincial Executive of the Farmers' Union, was held at Greytown on Friday night. The gathering also took the form of a send-off to Mr W. A. lorns, vice-chairman of the Dairy Control Board, who leaves shortly to take up a position with- the Board 's London office. Among those present were the Hon. W. Nosworthy, Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. A. D. McLeod, Minister of Lands, aud Mr David Jones, chairman of the Meat Board. The health of the Meat Control Board wap proposed by Mr A, Ross, vice-pro-vincial president of the Fanners' Union, who enlarged' on the fact that the formation of the Board was the fulfilment of one of the main planks of the Union, In reply, Mr Jones said that the Board had grown out of the great need of the farmers, and its operations and responsibilities had grown to such an extent that it was now controlling onequarter of the total exports of the Dominion. Tho speaker asserted that unless the Boards were vested with control they might as well be washed out altogether. When the whole of an industry, snch as this, was experimented with, it waß necessary to have solid facts behind them, and a reason for all thoy did, and he thought it a credit to his Board that they never had had to retrace their steps in one single matter. "You will be interested to know," continued Mr Jones, "that the Board's policy in leaving kidneys in lamb has resulted in a huge success, in spite of the opposition brought forward at tho time, and we are informed that New Zealand lamb in its present condition is selling better ' than ever it did. This increased value means £150,000 annually to the growers of the meat, and while your Board costs you £20,000, I think you will agree that it is serving its purpose and giving good value for the outlay. You must remember that there are limitless opportunities ahead, for in Belgium, France, and Germany you have 150 million Jeople who, in the last three years, ave adopted the habit of eating foreign meat." Mr Ben Roberts, who proposed the health of the Dairy Control Board, and success to Mr lorns in his new venture, declared that half of tho dairymen of the country had a hazy idea of eontrol, and imagined it was a leap in the dart. He would like to put their minds at ease, for he considered the Board was the only organisation capable of challenging the present competition and routing the speculator. He instanced how the Argentine had employed experts at four-figured salaries, while Russia induced the pick of the Danish managers to take up the development of the Siberian industry. The Control Board required the assistance of every farmer to m«st the consequent competitian^and

seo that New Zealand was not left behind in the race for prosperity. Mr lorns, in reply, paid a tribute to the efforts of the Ministers of Agriculture and of Lands in the early stages of the legislation which made the establishment of both Boards possible, and also to the Government for its attitude. Regarding the establishment of laboratory research, he contended that it would be the salvation of the industry. Though they sent away £20,000,000 worth of produce annually, for all they knew they might be tipping the most valuable of the product down the drain. In reply to the toast of Parliament, ifr McLeod said that the work of the Farmers' Union for twenty years had been very much of a negative nature. It was not the legislation the'y had passed, but the legislation they had prevented from being passed. _ Dealing with land settlement, he said that there could be no success for the farming community unless their land legislation was safe. The future expansion of the population by the development of lew land was quiclcly coming to an end, and whatever Government was in power, it would have to give to this question serious consideration. New Zealand would not grow to be a big nation by her primary produce, and it must bo looked to that our other industries were enabled to compete favourably with the other nations of the world.