TREATMENT OF MILK

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24902, 15 June 1946, Page 2

TREATMENT OF MILK

OPPOSITION TO PUBLIC CONTROL

REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO BOARD Representatives of various interests in the milk industry who made representations to the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board last evening were unanimous in their opposition to the establishment of a central milk treating house operated either by the board or by a public corporation. Recently the board was told by Mr H. H. Innes, Director.of Milk Marketing, that these were the alternatives decided upon by the Central Milk Council, which was determined that milk treating should be removed from the hands of private interests. The board did not debate this question last evening, adjourning after a sitting of nearly three hours had been devoted solely to hearing the views of the milk industry representatives. Members of the Christchurch Fresh Milk Association devoted some attention to the principle of the right of choice of consumers as between raw and pasteurised milk, Mr W. Wright contending that the centralisation of treating would inevitably lead to pasteurisation of the whole city supply. “Those in auhority should be called on to show what is wrong with the Christchurch supply, if anything. Show what you want done and the trade will respond, put in all the necessary plant and equipment, and do the ]oo. he said.

Plebiscite Suggested Mr W. N. McDonald, for the same association, said that men who had spent 20 or 30 years building up good businesses were in danger of losing their livelihood, and Mr H v S. Thelning contended that the centralisation issue should be decided by a vote of the consumers. Mr J. Bowler, a speaker for that part of the association representing returned servicemen, submitted that vendors must know whose milk they were handling and the source of the supply. To Mr J. E. Tait, Mr Wright said that if given a choice between .the abolition of zoning and the centralisation of treating in a public corporation he would ravour the abolition of zoning. If public control was unavoidable he would prefer the board to do

it. “I don’t think any other dairy in New Zealand is putting out better milk than mine,” said Mr J. R. D. Johns (Devondale Dairy). “I can’t see why the Government should interfere when private enterprise is doing a good job.” He predicted that this new step would be the thin end of the wedge, and would open the way to complete State or municipal control in five years. The position of United Dairies. Ltd., the main milk treating company in Christchurch, was set out by Mr B. Perry, chairman of directors. He contended that the subply, treatment and distribution of milk in Christchurch to-day could be considered satisfactory. There was virtually no trouble over quality, and the consumer was obtaining his supply at a price lower than anywhere else in New Zealand. The company was treating 7000 gallons of milk a day, or 54 per cent, of the city’s total supply. Of this, 5000 was treated for other vendors or for the Milk Marketing Department. Small Profits on Treatment

In the last year the net profits of the company. before the payment of taxes were .&63d a gallon; after the payment of taxes .262 d a gallon. The State took more than double what the shareholders received in dividends. The profits were so extraordinarily low as to make ridiculous the suggestion that the profit motive was the company’s only incentive. Were that so the company would not have installed a new chilling plant at a cost of between £6OOO and £7OOO or maintained a laboratory costing £l2OO a year. Notwithstanding the small profit margin the company operated on a more efficient basis than any other* milk treating plant in New Zealand, not excluding the Wellington City Council, which ■ on a turnover of £650,0Q0 made a net profit of only £535, yet obtained a higher consumer price than any treatment house in Christchurch. The company had just obtained an import licence for the importation of a much larger treatment plant, costing about £25,000. This would double the present treating capacity and enable the plant’to be alternated when overhauls were necessary.

Attention to Production Urged Mr C. J. McFadden (Canterbury Dairy Farmers’ Co-operative Milk Supply Company) submitted that the treatment of milk was of smaller importance than the production side. If the State had to step in it should be in the production side, which was now failing by about 2000 gallons a day to meet the needs of Christchurch.

Mr H. S. S. Kyle: It would be too difficult for them. What about the 40hour week?

Mr MCFadden said his organisation recognised that some centralisation was necessary, but contended that treatment should be carried out by private enterprise. When United Dairies’ new plant was installed Christchurch would have treatment second to none in New Zealand. Producers throughout the district, he declared, opposed the public utijity proposal. No monopoly could be created by the fusion of his company with United Dairies, because there would always be the competition of the producer-vendors, who were specifically allowed by the Milk Act to operate. Payment for quality was merely a matter of laboratory testing and recording. Mr J. E. Royds, for the Metropolitan Milk Suppliers’ Co-operative Association. said his company and the farmers generally opposed centralisation. “You will end up with a very beautiful public utility, but ho milk,” he declared.

When Mr RoydS went on to say that the present shortage was due to an insufficient price, the chairman (Mr M. E. Lyons) pointed out that dairy-

men had entered into contracts to supply, throughout the year, all the milk Christchurch needed, plus a margin of 10 per cent. They did not sign those contracts lightly, when they included a penalty clause. It was common ground however, that, the producers did not get all they should. Mr W. H. Davies, the operator of a private treating plant, and Mr L. J. Hensley, solicitor for 22 vendors who drew milk from United Dairies and expressed their entire satisfaction with the quality and the service given, also opposed the public utility proposal.