WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1927, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS

CONTROL AND PRICE-FIXING

MR GOODFELLOW’S VOLTE-FACE

(Special to “ Guardian ’.)

WELLINGTON, May 30,

Although he had unburdened himself at the monthly meeting of the Dairy Board two or three days before and had entrusted liis confidence to quite a number of personal friends, it was not until the appearance of the morning paper on Saturday that many Interested people learned that Mr V ilI i.uii Goodfellow, the biggest figure in the dairy industry of the Dominion today, had returned from his flying visit to Loudon satisfied that “absolute control has gone,” that “ it is absolutely hopeless to think of re-establishing price-fixing,’’ and that the only way of securing the best prices lor the producers “ is by the formation of group export marketing companies.” In order to reconcile these revised views of the dairying situation with his former insistence ol ircc marketing Mr Goodfellow finds it necessary to occupy four columns of solid newspaper print in explaining why his cnrelully prepared designs have gillie astray and why he is now prepared to concede almost everything to his former opponents. It cannot he said with truth that his lour columns of print add much to his reputation either as a controversialist or as a veracious chronicler, llis, it would seem, is the case of the lawyer with a had case seeking to extricate his client from an unhappy position by abusing the other side. Two or three extracts from his lengthy pronouncement will show to what lengths this expedient is employed. They by no means exhaust the list, but they are tvpical of several others. THE IMPEACHMENT. I soon found,” Mr Goodfellow writes, “ that the stock position was absolutely sound, in fact better than it had been for years, and I was therefore forced to the conclusion that the Dairy Board had been stampeded by pressure that had come directly or indirectly from a small group of "Wellington exporters, assisted by that useful medium for propaganda, the Freo Marketing League. . . The alarmist statements of the free-marketers when analysed proved to he a complete mare’s nest. Now Zealand farmers had been told by coloured commercial cablegrams and inspired anonymous press messages that there were huge accumulations of dairy produce in London; that New Zealand dairy produce was being boycotted by the merchants of England and further, that the Now Zealand factories had lost the goodwill of the trade. Undoubtedly this propaganda was directly responsible for the Board’s rash act in throwing up the sponge, an act which will cost the country a huge sum of money, but an act by which admittedly a small group of New Zealand exporters will hereafter benefit very considerably financially. . . It was because they (certain London distributors) realised that the Dairy Board’s scheme was logical, scientific and efficient, and would ultimately reveal their own inefficiency, that the group co-operated with the interested New Zealand exporters in the propaganda aiming at misleading the prod uoers.”

AN EMPTY INVENTION. No graver indictment than the one levelled by Mr Goodfellow against “certain members of the Dairy Board.” “a small group of exporters” and the newspapers of the Dominion could he framed. Had it boon directed against an individual its validity could not have gone unchallenged in a Court of law. Yet in his whole four columns of print Mr Goodfellow does not advance one little of evidence in support of liis allegations. He tells ol the leading buyer of tho largest multiple simp organisation laughing at the idea of New Zealand butter being boycotted on account of price-fixing ; o! a recognised butter expert declaring at the time New Zealand butter was selling at 15Is that the price should have boon from 165 s to 170 s; ol one of the largest merchant importers volunteering the opinion that had the Dairy Board’s scheme been properly supported by the producers in New Zealand there was no doubt, in his mind that the Control Hoard’s policy would have been a success. And so on and so on, without in a single instance the slightest indication of the name or the standing of the individual who. in courtesy or ill conviction, was prepared to say what Mr Goodlellow wanted him to say. (hi the other hand, the Tlon. J. G. Coates, the Prime Minister of the Dominion, to quote' only one of the many reliable witnesses on the other side, alter the closest investigation of the facts on the spot, gave it as liis opinion that the continuance of price-fixing would he attended hv disastrous results. BLAME AND REPENTANCE.

Having regard to bis present attitude towards absolute control and price-fixing it is more than a little difficult to believe that Mr Goodl'ellow really regrets what happened. If he over honestly thought these panaceas for the various ills from which lie told the producers they were sullcring would be effective, surely be would not have renounced them simply because “ a small group of AVelington exporters.” “ assisted by a useful medium for propaganda." bad raised their voices in protest. Curiously enough after denouncing the exporters for having wrecked the policy of ‘‘compulsion” Mr Onodfellow proceeds to lay the blame for the catastrophe upon the shoulders of a number of other people, (piite impartially. “ The scheme of absolute control has been wrecked bv dissensions within the industry and by farmers themselves,” be

says. . . “If Parliament had grnnt_ ed legislation to the producers along the lines originally asked for then the desired stability would have been main" tained and tho control system would have proved a success. . . The wrong men were on the Dairy Board because ol the method of election. . . Responsibility for this must rest largely with the Labour Party and the Liberal Party in their demand for the democratic principle of one man one vote.” Finally in a spasm of candour and chivalry Mr Goodfellow proclaims that he is “ quite prepared to accept personally a full measure of blame for the failure of the absolute control policy under tho conditions and circumstances outlined.” This is as it should he. Had the Dairy Board been content to follow the policy Mr Massey expected it to follow, in all probability it would have encountered littc adverse criticism and done much for the producers and their industry. Is it too late, while Air Goodfellow still is at the school of repentance, for tho Board to retrace its steps and apply itself to the good work for which it was designed ?