AGAINST CONTROL

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12614, 26 November 1926, Page 6

AGAINST CONTROL

PROTEST BY CHAMBERS “THE FARMERS WILL ACT” QUESTION OF SPECULATION The conference of Chambers of Commerce yesterday declared itself against the absolute control policy of the Daily Produce Control Board. One delegate stated that even if the chambers had no voice on the matter tlie matter had gone so far that the farmers would take things Into their own hands. The following remit was submitted for adoption:—“ln view of the serious position of the Dominion’s butter export trade in London, and the strong adverse reports anent tho action of the Control Board and tile bringing into operation of absolute control, this meeting of tlie Associated Chambers of Commerce vigorously protests and strongly urges on the Government to eliminate tho word ‘control’ from the title of the New Zealand ‘Dairy Produce Control Board, and to pass immediate legislation to repeal or amend section 13 of tlie 1923 Act granting tlie power to enforce absolute control.” Mr C. P. Agar (Christchurch) said that da ambers throughout the Dominion were opposed to a continuation of the Dairy Board’s policy, very few having agreed with it. Even if they switched around now, matters had gone so far that the farmers themselves would take things into their own hands. In addition the Prime Minister, with the additional knowledge of the position he had gained while in England, would probably return to New Zealand a sadder but wiser man on this particular issue. THEIR OWN BED |Mr W. Dobson (Dannevirke) thought the matter had better be left alone. It was in tho hands of the Government, and ho believed that there would be a different Act passed in the near future. “The farmers have made their bed,” ho said, “and are lying on it—and they are not finding it too comfortable. It is not for us to interfere.” Mr D. Rutledge (Invercargill) spoke strongly in favour of control, aud said that it had been admitted that the one aim was tlie prospertiy of the farmers. (Hear, hear.) It was on this account that the whole position had been investigated; and having investigated, the farmer decided that the control and marketing of liis produce was tho only way in which to avoid bankruptcy. The speculation which had prevailed in the marketing of dairy produce he declared to be a crime, and said there was an enormous difference between the price received here for the produce and that paid on the London market. Why was it allowed to go on, and why did tlie agents here wink at the excessive charges? There were many small matters which required serious thought, and it was because of this that the farmer had decided to control his produce. WHAT DAIRYMEN THINK “The dairymen,” lie said, “resent the imputations which have been cast against tlieir intelligence, and the Chambers of Commerce have not increased in popularity by doing this. What influence have they been able to wield? It is the law of the land to-day in spite of tlie misrepresentations that have been made. “Some of the remarks would lead one to believe that experience of control had taught the farmer a lesson, but the farmer has not yet had experience of control. He lias not had a chance of demonstrating what it could do.” ,Mr Itutledgo further considered that every seller of a commodity was entitled to place a price on his goods —just as a farmer placed a reserve on his stock at the sale. Mr W. Macliin (Christchurch) considered that the chamber had a right ■ —in fact a duty—to protect the interests of everyone in business, and was therefore justified in taking action in this matter. Mr Rutledge- Whose property is this dairy produce? Mr Machin: The property of the man who is being forced to sell his stuff under conditions which he does not like. The remit was carried.