DAIRY CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 15 July 1927, Page 1

DAIRY CONTROL

AID. COATES VINDICATES MINIS EL F. WELLINGTON. July 13. Dairy control occupied a good deal of the Prime .Minister’s attention dur. iug his contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate. Air Coates commenced showing that he had long experience as a farmer and co-operator, and with this knowledge was able to point to some weaknesses in the cooperative system, and make important suggestions for their elimination. He traversed the whole story of the failure of price-fixing, and answered seriatim points of personal criticism made against him by the Loader of tj’io Opposition. The Prime Minister declared that of course 'the Opposition felt it a duty to criticise and it was making a desperate effort to get on side with the producer, endeavouring to show that it was the real friend of ihe farmer. As a matter of fact, he happened to be a producer himself. His instincts were hound up in the laud, and if he ceased connection with politics, he would return to the land. He was acquainted first-hand with the co-opera-tive movement among the fanning community, and had always Worked along co-operative lines, so that he could claim first-hand and inside knowledge of it. lfis concern was not Ihi' political aspect, for which he did nett care a rap. His concern was tor the dairy producer and lie would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Tf he had been Prime Al.inister in London when a, similar position existed, would he have refused to meet Tooley Street? Air Holland: I would certainly have invited the Chairman of the Control Hoard, who was in London, and not held a meeting secret from him.

Air Coates: I shall he able to show that the honourable gentleman is in error. Would ho have refused to see these men?

Air Holland: I have never made any complaint about that, hut you saw them behind the hack of the chair-

Alr Coates continued that lie was not burning to cuter into the dairy controversy. Im l ho became concerned about the dairy producer’s interests, and what Ihe was going to get lor Iris produce. His line of action was clear, lie would sec those men. diseitss with them any matters of interest, and any effect it might, have on the producer in New Zealand. This lie did. and later informed them that he had no part in the. hoard’s policy, and it was a mutter, entirely for the Dairy Board. Ho pointed out to the London committee his opinion that they wore making a mistake in their policy of forcing price-fixing and lie took tip the attitude. “If you are not going to he forewarned led us see il you can make a success of your scheme, whether by combined effort you can push your scheme into successful operation.” WEAKNESSES OF CO-OPERATION. A question for consideration was whether there were any structural weakneses in co-operation. There had been extraordinary strides made through co-operation tit securing excellence of quality and efficiency in handling, but tin- question arose whether there was a weakness tit marketing. When it came to getting up thc.‘ Control Board, an element ot politics canto in, and where consistent ami acute management was essential it was dillieult to secure ii where members wore responsible to electors. 1 hero were so many people outside the hoard who could manage things better than the hoard, whose policy was constantly interfered with. The leader ol ihe Opposition consistently advocated an open policy, hill Ins reply to that was that no business concern could possibly run on those lines. If was impossible, and such a policy would wreck any commercial < anccrtt which carried it out. ft was certainly wrong to make it a political question. The hoard should he allowed to settle down. AN INDEPENDENT COUNCIL. Alt l.ysunr: Pul out the commercial clement. Air Coates: There is another suggestion that these hoards should hand over to tin independent council of one, two or three men. who have perfect knowledge of the business. It may be a method of getting much further and with more success Ilian with so many having a. linger in the pie. Mr Will'ord: Who will appoint them ?

Mr Coates: Tlie board, delegating its own powers. Strangely enough, in co-operative concerns where they have made a success, they had handed alfairs over to a manager, and one or two assistants to run the show, eliminating constant interference from men who lhave not the same knowledge ol the business. The Government's experience of other hoards was that they kept in very close contact with the Government. The Dairy Board had done so. hut not to the extent of the other boards.

The Prime Minister went on to give a survey of opinions presented to him in London by merchants. The cable lie sent was composed after he had been in contact not only with London representatives, hut members nt t.ho trade in the provinces. “T «m convinced that, had the hoard steadied up at that tinn, they probably would be very much further ahead than they are.’' lie said. While the Government and its party vein not implicated in the dairy control policy. they were certainly concerned about the success of the policy. He was afraid the hoard was in the position that where it produced only a small portion of the product in demand it must he subject to competition. As for the Government's responsibility for appointing Mr Paterson to the London hoard, lie would remind Parliament that the names or Mr Paterson and one other was .submitted to the Hairy Board and Mr Paterson was approved. At the meetings with merchants in London OS per cent of the trade was represented. Propaganda was nothing new where interests were in conflict. Any argument as to Mr Paterson’s influence a.minst price-fixing was completely nullified by .Mr Tunis’s revelation on his return that of the members of the London committee two were against price-fixing and one favoured it. "I deny." lie said, “that we have at any time directed our members on the hoard or the London committee as to what they should do.’

FARMERS SHOULD PULL TOGETHER. The Prime Minister declared that his advice to farmers was always to work together. It was this constant dissension which caused trouble. Both sides were strong-minded and in the c-nd the publicity given enabled those who were against them to drive a wedge amongst the farmers. He gave Mr Grounds a copy of his cable three days after it was sent.

Mr Holland (leader of the Opposition) : Secret matter had been going out from the London agency tit Tooley Street. Afr Coates: The information Tooley Street got came from New Zealand, following publication of my confidential cable here. “I’VE A GOOD AIIND TO RESIGN.” Quoting from notes of an interview with Afr Paterson, Government representative on the London hoard, the Prime Minister said that in November Air Paterson said to him. “I have a good mind to resign, but T will not because 1 can still save a gretP deal of trouble.” AH' Coates said he answered, “It is not for mo todictate what you should do, and if you feel you can be of use it is for you to remain.” It all came buck to the point of whether a price-fixing policy was sound. If New Zealand produced all the butter available in England this monopoly could have fixed prices, hut was that fair? The real position was that New Zealnd was supplying only a portion of the requirements, and when it fixed prices the dairy produce could not be sold. An impression had been created in the minds of the English public that if they were, in the hands ol the New Zealand producer they would be in a dangerous position. “Foreign butter brought about competition and,” said the English consumer, “prevents anyone front forcing the lasi copper out of us.” “It is a clearly wrong impression, but it lias been created,” concluded Air Coates.