THE DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

Matamata Record, Volume VI, Issue 440, 28 May 1923, Page 1

THE DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

I MEETING AT MORRINSVILLE. Opinions of Small Companies. Divided Over Compulsory Clauses. The Dairy Control Bill was the cause of the directors of a number of small co-operative companies gathering in Morrinsville on Thursday. A meeting had been convened to discuss this Bill and to ascertain the opinions of the small companies prior to the conference next week In Hamilton. The representation of the various companies present was as follows: — Morrinsville, Messrs. R. J. McCausland, F. W. Soil\*t, J. E. Leeson, G. Firrit and F. K. Tompkins; Tatua, Mr. W. R. Lowry; Ilinuera, Messrs. ! Cotter and Hawke; Norfolk, Messrs. S. A. Ferguson, W. F. Stark, A. T. Scrivener, A. L. Lambic and It. It. Douglas; .Sunny Park, Messrs. C. A. Stopford, J. Bell and J. G. Goodwin; Richmond Downs, Messrs. Wallace and Mapp. The Rotorua, Tokorou, Puketurua and ITauraki Plains Companies, who were invited to attend, were not represented. Mr. R. J. McCausland was voted to the chair. The chairman said the meeting was held in answer to the circular sent out by ihe Dairy Council intimating that it was sought to have a Bill introduced to the House this session on the lines of the measure of the last session. The Bill, in his Opinion, inquired careful consideration. I lie first thing was what was dairy produce? In his opinion anything made from whole milk should bo included. Another point was the basis of representation and this required going into very carefully and thoroughly. They all agreed that the principles of a pool were good provided the basis was a proper one. He did not like the idea of compulsion. If it was a voluntary concern it would in time weld together their interests, hut if it was compulsory then points detrimental to their interests might creep in. The speaker then went into the details of the Bill. He concluded by urging all companies and suppliers to see thatl the compulsory clauses were not used as a weapon to injure any particular section. . After the preliminary discussion it was decided to Like the Bill by sections. COMPULSION. Mr. Seifert said it seemed to him that the feeling of Hie meeting should be ascertained as to whether the companies favoured the clause. All dairymen were agjAed,,.osf ; the heed of control, but they were.Twt.-, unanimous as to whether the .co.nti’pT l4 should be compulsory or voluntary., There wore certain points in which compulsion might he essential and others in which it would not do^ Mr. C. A. Stopford said theroTva/ no doubt as to where he stood. He was opposed to compulsion. There was not sufficient information before the dairy farmers to justify them adopting such a drastic step as compulsion. They had only had the opinion of a few men who had toured England. He urged that the whole position should ho thoroughly examined and his idea was that a committee of three business men should he appointed as follows: —One to be appointed by the co-operative dairy companies; the second by the proprietary companies; and the third, to he chairman, to he appointed by the Government. This committee would tour the Northern Hemisphere where the butter of tho Southern Hemisphere is sold and exhaustively investigate the conditions. After this report was received then it was time to think of compulsion. Every one would agree that the shipping arrangements were bad. Why? They had representatives on the National Dairy Association to look after this matter, and if they were unable to make arrangements then they should go to the dairy farmers who appointed them. It was said the marketing arrangements were had. They knew that what they wanted to know was what were they to do? At present compulsion was altogether ahead of the times. He criticised the Meat Pool and said 1 hat they sent Mr. Jcssop Home and lie told them there was an opening for pork and bacon, something which they knew 20 years ago. Then (liny sent the secretary Home to check Mr Jossop’s views. What had happened ? Mutton and lamb had fallen and beef was no longer quoted. They wanted to he cautious that the dairy farmers did not put a burden on their hack. In support of his suggestion that a committee should he appointed lie referred to the action taken fey Taranaki in regard to dried milk. That province investigated the position first hand and as a result there were no “ monuments studded over the landscape.” AH over the world there was a feeling that Government control and interference were had. He agreed most heartily that Government interference with the dairy farmers’ interests was had. Mr. Stopford moved that there he no compulsory legislation until after a committee' sent Home had thoroughly investigated the position.

Mr Leeson, in seconding the motion, said he thought the proviso was fully justified. Mr. W. It. Lowry strongly criticised Mr. Stopford’s remarks. It was a repetition of the old cry of ‘ taihoa.” He referred to the history ol Uk l cheese market <j.his season, when the market was glutted. Everyone admitted control was required, vet Mr. Stop ford said “ laihoa. How

long would it he before the committee could report? Two or three years. Yet the dairy farmer required action. It would he impossible to have a Bill of this nature without compulsion. The Bill- would be useless without compulsion. If if was not compulsory they might as well burn the Bill and he done with it. Mr. Cotter said he was pleased to hear the proviso put in by Mr. Stopford. The whole matter required going into very carefully. Organisation was essential. Everybody would agree that some sound system of organisation was required. It had to be admitted that organisation would interfere with existing agents by taking away from them their commissions. They had to he careful about this or they might find that the agents would combine and strive to break down their organisation. Mr. A. T. Scrivener, in opposing the motion, said if it could he shown that compulsion could benefit the dairy farmers then they should support it. Tie pointed out that the National Dairy Association had no power to make shipping contracts. Regularity of shipment was a very essential matter. It was also desirable that the produce should he placed on the market throughout the whole year, not for eight months only. This could only be done by the Board controlling 1 the output and placing it regularly on the market. He thought that the Bill without co"'pulsion would he useless. Mr. S. A. Ferguson favoured the compulsory clauses. Tt was the weak point of all farming movements in the Dominion that there was no compulsion. lie stressed the advantages to ho gained by shipping companies knowing that they could rely on getting the whole of tho output. Mr, Seifert said there was ii certain amount of confusion about" compulsion. The fact was the promoters wore trying to run before they could walk. If tho interest taken in trying (o invest the committee with farreaching powers had been applied to the dairying industries much good could have been done. Tt could have been easily arranged for the National Dairy Association to have made shipping arrangements. Mr. W. F. Stark objected to tho Bill because of compulsion. All that was asked could he obtained bv voluntary methods, and it was time to talk about coinnulsion when the voluntary methods had been tried and failed. Mr. Map;) thought that unless there was some kind of compulsion evervhody would go their own wav. Still he was not sufficiently conversant, with the Bill to say how far compulsion was necessary.

The of voting was a contentions point and it was moved that each company have one vote. Mr. Stark: The chairman will exnrore his personal opinion, not that of his company. On Ihe motion being nut M.orvinsPark and Hinncva, voted for the-motion,,.and Tatu-anyl. Norfolk and Rich mo nd • .(Down s against It. ELECTING THE COUNCIL; Mr. Leeson objected to the method proposed of electing the Council. He pointed out that tho present committee was appointed by only 127 out of over 500 companies. He moved that a-new Dairv Council to elect the Control Board be elected on the votes of the; chairmen or representatives of all dairy companies, the basis of voting to he 500 tons one vote, 500 to 1000 tons two votes, and over 1000 tons three votes. Mr. Cotter seconded the motion. Mr. Scrivener agreed with the suggestion put forward in a circular that the Dominion should be divided into wards or districts, which would . prohibit any big company from obtaining an undue control. Mr. Ferguson disagreed with Mr. Leeson and thought that the small companies would be better protected if the Control Board was elected by the Council. He considered the basis, of voting suggested by Mr. Leeson was, too drastic. Mr. R. J. McCausland was in accord. \\ffth the motion. Mr. Seifert considered it was all important that the first Council should he elected by the companies. He was not altogether in favour of tho basis of voting suggested by Mr. Leeson. Mr. Scrivener moved Hint tho present Council should only elect a provisional Board of Control until such time, such period not to exceed three months, as a new Council he appointed or elected. Mr. Lowry seconded the amendment. A Voice: Would the New Zealand Dairy Company he satisfied with three votes ? Another Delegate: No, they want the lot. Mr. Seifert did not think the suggested basis of voting would he fair lo the Dairy Company. The amendment, was then put and lost by four votes (Morrinsville, Sunny Park, Hinucra and Richmond Downs) to two (Tatua and Norfolk). Mr. Ferguson thought that the meeting could give an indication of its feeling bv stating the basis of voting should he on output with a limit to the big companies. Mr. Leeson agreed to amend his motion in this direction and the motion was carried. THE LEVY. The suggested levy of scl for butter and 1-lGd for cheese together with the power given the Control Board to deduct certain expenses from sales money was criticised by Mr. Seifert, who said there should he a definite amount. He moved that the maximum levy should he as mentioned in the Dili hut A, B, C and E in the Bill he met out of the levy. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion. Mr. Stark agreed that the maximum should he distinctly stated so that the producers would know exactly what it was costing. The expanses of the Board should come out of the levy. Some discussion ensued as to whether “ rebates ” should he at the control of tho Board. Mr. Seifert was emphatic that the levy should be sufficient to cover all expenses. Mr. Cotter advocated a definite sum being fixed. (Continued at foot of next column.)

Mr. S. A. Ferguson moved as an amendment that the whole expenses of the Board he paid out of the present levy and the rebates on commissions. . , Mr. Lowry seconded the amend- ™ Norfolk, Tatua and Bunny Park voted for the amendment and Morrinsville, Richmond Downs and Hinueva against. MANURES. Mr. Stopford thought the only way they could arrive at any definite arrangement with the Farmers I‘cvtlliser Company was for the dairy companies to meet the directors and to discuss the whole, matter. Tf they could not get satisfaction from the directors then they would have to seek redress from Parliament. Mr. Cotter thought it was almost as important to the farmers as the Dairy Bill. He spoke at length on the 'subject, detailing in ter views of his company with Mr. T.. !'• M P The farmers ought to he mtn position of getting their manure at the same price as merchants. Mr. Ferguson said tho Noifollc Company were in accord with the other speakers’ views. Messrs. Stopford, Ferguson and Cotter were gmiointed a committee to inquire into the matter and report.