The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9th, 1923. PRICE CONTROL AND CONSUMERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 October 1923, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9th, 1923. PRICE CONTROL AND CONSUMERS.

Ministries, from experience, have learned the lesson that there are two sides to the question of compulsory pooling of produce, remarks the “Australasian.'’ It is perhaps natural for producers and others to make demands of tne kind, hut the general taxpayer also has to he taken into account. This phase of the matter appears even to have engendered caution by the Theodore Cabinet in Queensland, and no doubt is expressed whether it will accede to the request for a compulsory butter pool. The pool was mooted owing to the withdrawal of the Kingston Butter Factory from the voluntary price stability arangement that had l>een operating in that State for some time. In the first instance, the Queensland Co-operative Dairy Companies’ Association made application to the Minister of Agriculture for a compulsory pool. This request was referred tq the Council of Agriculture

v.hicli, on September 13. recommended tile Ministry to carry it out. The money to finance the project was to be provided by the Ministry. It is understood that as ;t beginning Mr Theodore had •teen asked to provide about £.70,000, and, apparently, he cannot see the demand ending with that amount. In addition, the Queensland Ministry has obtained information that lias made it waver on the question and indications suggest that the Ministry will not give approval. Developments will bo watched with interest, for the consensus of opinion was that a compulsory pool would | lay into the hands of Mr Theodore. Recently, one of the cc-operatire companies in Melbourne took steps to form an organisation to Inutile eggs on behalf oi the poultryraisers. but the proposals have not been accepted by other co-operative produce companies. The organisers, however, evidently intend to try to carry the project through the medium ol their own company, and have issued circulars, to suppliers, setting out advantages to bo gained by marketing eggs under the system proposed, li is pointed out that in the past, egg-producers, through lack of organisation, have not been in receipt of prices as remunerative as would have been the case had concentration of supplies been clFooted. It is also stated that, as supplies during the spring are far in excess of home demands, the surplus is bought by speculators, who use it either to trade with foreign buyers, or place it in cool .store, with the object of making largo profits during the low productive period. The proposal is to regulate the percentage of eggs to be placed upon the Melbourne market, to -develop London and American markets, and put supplies in cold store for late) disposal. Emphasis is laid upon the results of the operations of a similar system by the Coastal Farmers Co-op-erative '.Society, .Sydney, where tho weekly average price obtained was said to he 2d a dozen more than that realised in Melbourne. In this connection the company might have given more details of the results of the Sydney enterprise. It attempted to develop the Loudon market, much to the sorrow of those who supported the scheme. Allowing that 2d a dozen above Melbourne prices was obtained, it is understood that losses on the London shipments were very great, ami one concern alone would probably have been bettor off to the extent of approximately £120,000 had it not supjiorted the system. Further, tho circular fails to state what would, have happened to the market during the “flush” period of ] induction had speculators not operated. Further, it was open to others to put surplus supplies into cold stores, and so reap the advantages that it is inferred were gained by speculators.