DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1925, Page 4

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

SOME PLAIN r ACTS. p T a There appears to he some peril of jj the controversy over the proposal of v the Dairy Board to assume absolute j, control of the marketing of the butter and cheese produced in the Dominion drifting into a political and personal wrangle between the contending parties-, and of the real issues at | stake, which concern the general pub- j lie scarcely less than they do the dairy farmers themselves, being obscured by ( a camouflage of hasty assumptions - and vague assertions. In these eir- | cumstances no apology need he made } for attempting to present in plain language the facts of the situation, and to explain, as judicially as maybe, their meaning and significance. IN EVENT OF EMERGENCY. 1 The main opposition to both the Meat Control Bill and the Dairy Produce Bill upon their appearance in Parliament was directed against the clauses giving the hoards, which were to administer the measures power to assume absolute control of all the meat or dairy produce, as the case ( might he, in the country and to market it as they thought fit without any regard to the wishes or the obligations of the producers. Strong pro--1 tests wore, made against these clauses, members of parliament and others declaring that their enforcement would inflict a very grave wrong upon many producers and up.oll a number of othei people who had helped to build up the 5 industries, and finally the Govern- , ment gave assurances in both cases 5 that only in the event of an extreme emergency would the proposed 111111*- > keting powers he exercised. The Meat - Control Act came into operation in t February 1922 and shortly afterwards t the hoard to administer it was set up - with the powers of compulsion. THE TWO BOARDS. I lie Meat Board, however, has 1103 ver exercised its powers of compulsory • marketing. It has directed its efforts t with very marked success, to the cns forcemeat of strict grading, the imf provement of the methods of handling. ■ the reduction of freights and insur- -. mice, the maintenance of regular sup-

plies, the extension ol markets, the effective advertising of New Zealand

products and the general protection of

shippers’ interests am! tne eneouragement of buyers’ goodwill and confidence. By these means, and without

disturbing ordinary trade channels, it has saved the producers in charges alone, well over a million sterling dur-

ing the last two years, and what is ol

even more consequence to the producers and the country has stabilised the London market and established rcmuucrtive markets in other centres. The Dairy Produce Control Bill com-

pleted its passage through Parliament in August 1924. Ministers having giv-

en the assurances in respect to the compulsory clauses already mentioned,

and after being confirmed on a reference to the 56,00 ft factory suppliers by

22.284 votes to 92-5.5. 91.703 suppliers not voting, came into operation. Tn

due course a Board consisting of six members elected by the factory sup-

pliers in the North Island, three by the suppliers in the South Island, two appointed by the Government, and one nominated hv the merchants and

shippers, was ret up. T util quite lately the Board had confined its activities, apart from minor matters of

orgnisalion. to arranging an insurance cover for the whole of the New Zealand dairy produce at a satislactoiv rate, and sending a delegation over-seas to inquire into matters con. coining the 'Dominion's dairy industry, a very prudent and proper pro. feeding. HOARD and DKI.KGATfON. On its return from its investigations abroad the delegation presented a report to the hoard in which it recommended that the Board should undertake- the whole of the marketing of New Zealand dairy prediii e. and thal sales through any other medium should le stopped. The Board hv a vole of a majority of its members has adopted these recommendations and resolved that they shall come into force on August Ist. 1920. Needless to sav this decision has created some surprise and a good deal ol uneasiness. 'The Board has resolved to do what Ministers assured (Parliament and the public would not ho done except in grave emergency. The Board has not indicated in any wav that such an emergency has arisen. It merely states that it is impossible to pogulate supplies without com pilot c control and that f.o.b. sales must ho slopped because they are frequently employed ill breaking down the market. FLFCTUATING BRICKS. The;.' contentions may he examined briefly. The Board contends that the prires of New Zealand hotter lluctuate to a much greater extent than do the prices for Danish hotter, and that the only remedy for this unsatisfactory stale of affairs is to place the whole business of marketing in its hands. This point needs a little closer consideration. Here is a table showing the average importation of Danish and New Zealand butter into the Doited Kingdom during the three years ended December .‘list, last:

It will'be seen that tbe supplies from Denmark are remarkably oven the year through, while the supplies from New Zealand fluctuate enormously. The minimum months of Danish ! supply are from December to April, but even in these five months the average monthly supply is 6096 tons, while in the seven maximum months, from May to Novemlier, the average j supply? is 7598 tons, a difference of on- : lv 1502 tons between the average j minimum month and the average maximum month. Iti New Zealand the live minimum months are from November to May. The average supply in tile minimum months is 2,265 : :or.s, while in the maximum months k.. eimTtlr ft tflllfi Til

average monthly supply is 6096 tons, while in the seven maximum months, from May to Novemlier, the average supply*is 7598 tons, a difference of only 1502 tons between the average minimum month and the average maximum month. In New Zealand the live minimum months are from Novemlier to May. The average supply in tile minimum months is 2,265 tons, while in the maximum months the average supply is 6.288 tons. Tn two of the minimum months the averare supply goes down to 952 and 1262 tons respectively. During these periods, of ciour.se, New Zealand butter is practically unavailable on the London mar- | ckt, and buyers, who would become ' regular consumers in different ciicnm- j stances, turn to other brands and in I many cases continue to take them permanently. REGULATING SUI’LIES. The demand for butter is not merely seasonal. It exists the whole year 1 round and has to be satisfied by the j seller who wishes to maintain his connection. There can be no doubt that this irregularity of supply is the main J -atise of the fluctuation in the prices J if New Zealand butter on tbe London j narket and its failure to reach near- j ■r to a parity with the prices of Dan- i sh butter. There is, however, no rea- _ on at all why the shipment of dni - | * > reduce from the Dominion should x

ot be regulated by the Dairy Board Ist as the shipment- of meat is reulated by the Meat Board without iterfering with' the freedom of tin airy farmers to market their produce s they please and to arrange tlieii nance as they think l>est. This, after erv full inquiry and investigation, as been adopted as the policy of the de;tt Board with, highly satisfactory esults as may be judged from the rcnarkable stability of the prices realis'd for New Zealand meat, since the Hoard assumed intelligent and cffectve control. A practical scheme for the regulation of supplies and the assertion the K.O-B. sales frequently employed in breaking the market must form the subjects of a separate article.

.Month Danish N.Z. tons tons .l;l II Mil I'V .... 020*. 0055 Kcbruarv .... Olio 7-101 March .... 595-1 0738 April . .. -".777 5005 Mav 757° 7110 .1 lino .... 821-1 1123 July .... 8:181 3050 August ... 778!* 1938 September .... (1837 952 October . .. 7011 1262 November .. .... 7380 1-110 December .. ... 0131 5039 83.060 55.3-15