STATE “POOLS.”

Hokitika Guardian, 2 June 1923, Page 2

STATE “POOLS.”

ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? “Wo arc absolutely opposed to the State interfering with commercial affairs. The Government of tho day, whether Reform, Liberal, or Labour, performs every act with a political end in view, and politics and commerce will not mix. Besides, the people of New Zealand want to ho left alone to do their trading in their own way, and Now Zealand trade will dovelop and thrive according to the measure of freedom it enjoys.” Thus says tho “Mercantile Gazette” in the leading article of its issue of M,*,y lGth. “The demand for State control of primary products in Now Zealand,” it says, “is the direct outcome of the control exercised by vans ous Governments during tho war the time of a great national get icy. The producers had no trouble then, for they had merely to produoo ami there was one customer ready to take all they produced at a fancy price. It was boom times, it was a monev-making period, and naturady tiie producers would like to have those times hack agani. The British Government is no longer playing the part of the milch cow, consequently it hoped by a system of State or political control to bring back tho wartime prices. Hence we have tho ludicrous organisation known ns the Moat Control Board. The business community allowed this board to come into existence without a word of protest. consequently they have had tho iniquitous ‘Wheat and 1* lour Pool ; tiie Dairy Pool as a principle has boon affirmed, and will no doubt be passed by Parliament if Mr .Massey’s slender majority can be held together. A\ ithin the last few weeks we have had submitted a proposal which is to he a remit to the Dominion Conference ol the Farmers' Union in July, whereby the whole of the marketing of New Zealand wool is to he placed under tho . control ol a small hoard in tho nonunion, consisting of not lower than five or more than seven members representing both the large and small sheepfannors. . . .

After quoting a, statement by Sir Arthur Goldfinch, governing director of 8.A.W.R.A., affirming that Statu control would not suit peace times, tho “Gazette” examines the work ol tho Meat Control Board, pointing out tlvai its income is about £‘20,900, that it sent Air .1. S. Jossep to England on a. trip which “must have cost over a thousand [annuls. The secretary (MiBees). whose salary is reputed to ho C 1250, is now in London, probably checking the facts that Mr Jessep collected. A Mr Forsyth, whose salary is alleged to he £2750 jwr annum, is going to Boiuhm as an official of tiio hoard. Last week Air John Fraser, of the Meat Board, whose salary is said lo la* round about £1*5(10, left for the, Argentine. It will lie seen that a sul>stantial amount of the lax on tiio

meat companies is being squandered in high salaries, and there is little to show for it. Alutton and lamb have fallen by Id to Bjd since April 7th, and New Zealand frozen beef is not even quoted on the London market; hut there is nothing said by tho hoard, no explanation offered, no advice tendered.”

The “Gazette” suggests that thq hoard should send a limited and selected number of slaughtermen, meat fanners, and other skilled and semiskilled men to study improved methods of doing their work. “The hoard can never control the meat market; it cannot even regulate the shipments of meat ; Imt it could help the workers in the refrigeration works to expand their knowledge of the operations.”