WELLINGTON NOTES.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 February 1925, Page 4

WELLINGTON NOTES.

■ ABSOLUTE CONTROL.”

DAIRY BOARDS’ DILEMMA

(Special to “Guardimi”.)

WELLINGTON, February 10

Judging from the reports that are coming in from the country districts, the farmers as well as the business community, are awaiting the decision of the Dairy Board in regard to “Absolute Control ” with keen interest and very considerable anxiety. The statement published yesterday by the Chairman of the Board, though couched in conciliatory phrases, is by no means re-assuring to those interested people who believe they see in absolute control a grave peril to tbe dairy industry at this end and a still graver one at the other end. I'hcy rather are confirmed in their distrust by Mr orounds’s curious lack of candour in presenting bis case. In tins respect the chairman of the board assumes a vast amount of ignorance and credulity on the part of the public. I* dr instance, after quoting the suggestion of the over-seas delegation that “ a

few sound, keen houses in each of the provincial centres, in addition to the London houses should be- selected to assist in the development of trade with these centres,” lie asks, " \\ hat new revolutionary or dangerous proceeding is involved in these recommendations?” The inference obviously is that the opponents of absolute control have denounced these recommendations as revolutionary and dangerous, and yet .Ur Grounds knows perfectly well that it is enterprises of this kind .his critics have been urging all along. In no controversy are tactics ol this kind permissible and in a controversy intimately affecting the interests of the whole community they are particularly reprehensible. THE PERPLEXED PRODUCER. But to the average producer who dues his think for himself Mr Grounds’ lack of candour is no more disturbing than bis confusion of facts. 'I bo Chairman of the Board declares and reiterates that lie and bis colleagues in the advocacy of absolute control have no desire to disturb unnecessarily the existing systems of distribution and marketing. “ Our suggestion that the Board should undertake the responsibility of all sales,” lie says in his statement, “ has been taken as an isolated) roodlnmendation without consideration of the associated opinions expressed. ‘ that every sound firm or oragnisatiou wishing to serve as distributors of New Zealand produce

should be given an opportunity ol proving their sales capacity.’ Ibis quite obviously includes all the looley street houses, whose ability of service the report recognises, while the report fuither records the existence of wholesale merchants who consider that if given the opportunity they could improve our service.” Just what all this means the perplexed producer can only conjecture; but apparently it would rest with the Board’s Loudon agency to compare “ tbe results of each ol the agents,” and to sav whether bo should continue to receive supplies or not. “ Under a watchful board,” Mr Grounds avers, “ this system would provide much mure real competition than anything that exists at present.” Whether it is the “ London Agency ’ or the “ watchful board” that is to pronounce judgment upon the “sales capacity ” of the various firms and organisations is not made clear; but it Ts plain enough that a very inquisitorial surveillance would have to he maintained over the competitors for the privilege of handling New Zealand dairy produce. COMMANDEERING.

Mr Grounds, under pressure, has admitted that the way to the goal lie and his colleagues are seeking is >eset with perils. “We recognise, lie says for the first' time, “there aia risks in Ihe course suggested by the delegation.” H“" *’’ rvlwr .!-• ri w ks to a minimum, has engaged tin serious attention of the members ol the delegation and they have come to the conclusion that the Board or its London agency or some other body irresponsible so far as the public ol Xew Zealand is concerned— must be empowered to commandeer the produce ilt anv stage between its shipment and its delivery to the retailer. “To control by regulation of shipping alone, Mr Grounds explains, “ leaves a vast field of opportunity for those engaged i„ the speculative side of tbe business. The London Board should have the power to 'vary the flow of produce when it arrives if they think uecessary.” Of course a provision ol this kind, even if there were not other provisions to the same effect in the delegations “course,” would put a stop to all selling and Inlying for export m New, Zealand and the producers themselves, whether they were of a spcculathe disposition or not, would have to take all the risks of the over-seas markets, including the risks ol such retaliatory measures as might ho instituted by affronted dealers or even by indignant consumers. Anyone who has been reading the London papers fct all closely during recent months 'will realise that this “peril” is not merely an illusion on the part of the opponents of absolute control. PUBLIC OPINION.

The two morning papers here remain unshaken in their opposition to ... r G rounds's statement of his case. ■‘ls it proposed to cast aside existing avenues of sale.-” asks the . Dunlin ion,” which on a matter of this kind must ho regarded as the producers friend. “If not, why not say so.-' Hr Grounds admits that there is anxiety ns to what is in the air, and lie says it is due to misunderstanding. He should clear away that misunderstanding by a frank and full statement which could then be discussed on its merits. As it is there is a strong suspicion that the Dairy Control Bonin is being urged to embark on a risky experiment for which it- is tit present ill-equipped and which may prove an incalculably costly matter for the producers and for the country generally.’ The ‘'New Zealand Times” r.fC-'V reiterating its previous objection to •• this hazardous experiment,” pokes fun at the prospect of the Dairy Board being run by an irresponsible body in London. “Where does the .Dairy Control Board come in?” it asks. “The Board sits here in Wellington; its London office iunctions in London. The London office makes an important decision and the board will have to agree to the London office recommendation. whatever it may be. In other words, the board will have to register the decrees—in the all-import-ant matter of sales—of an irresponsible body sitting in London.” And so on and' so on. Whether taken seriously or Imhtlv'absolute control seems to make no' appeal to the newspapers.