DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

Shannon News, 21 September 1923, Page 3

DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

THE CASE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. ADDRESS BY MR J. Q. HARKNESS. At a meeting of dairy farmers in the Century Hall on Tuesday afternoon, convened by the district organiser ,of the Dairy Farmers’ Union, Mr J. I. Fox, Mr J. G. Harkness addressed the gathering, which numbered about forty, on the subject of the Dairy Control Bill.

Mr Harkness, who was introduced by Mr Fox, expressed the pleasure which the invitation to attend had given him, but said that he had hoped for a larger attendance. “I am not here,” said Mr Harkness, to speak on the advantages of a Dairy Farmers’ Union; all 1 will say is that there should be co-operation between dairy farmers, and that if this co-operation w:as properly carried out there was nothing on earth that they could not make a success of.” What he had to speak of was the Dairy Control Bill. He related the story of an Irish farmer who .when asked by a townsman what he did on long lonely evenings, said that ‘‘sometimes he sat down and thought, .and sometimes he just sat down.” This was humorous but it expressed the contempt which the average townsman held of tire farmer. What he.wished those present to do was to listen to what he was going ■to say, then go home and think about it| not merely “sit down” (laughter), and that they would come to a correct and equitable decision as to the merits of the Control Bill. He would ask them not to take too much notice of what the opponents of the Bill said against it. Those people were acting from self interest merely in opposing the measure. The friends of the Bill .were also acting from selfinterest, but their interest was the interest, of the dairy farmer. (Applause). He would advise them to hear both sides of the question, and then sit down and think seriously which side they should vote—think what was their duty to themselves, to the country, and to the Empire to which they belonged. (Applause). Personally he was not actively interested. in the industry at present, but. he had been put oh the ManawatuKangitikei Committee which was set up in connection with the election which was to take place, and asked to speak on behalf of the Bill, a position fo.r which he received no remuneration whatever.

He briefly sketched what had been done in connection with the Bill up-to-date, and stated that although 95 per cent, of the dairy farmers of New Zealand, were for the Bill last year, the organised opposition, consisting almost entirety of the proprietary interests, was sufficient to have it thrown out.

PROVISIONS OF THE BILL., The Bill, or more correctly speaking, the Act,' for it had passed through the Houses, was now the law of the land, but would not come into force until the dairy farmers of the country had had an opportunity oi voting on it.

The mam provision of this Bill were, firstly, that there was to be a Board consisting of twelve members, two to be nominated by the Government, no man who was not acceptable to the. farmers, being eligible. Six further members were to be elected from the North Island, and three from the South Island; one was to be nominated by the proprietary concerns, and the merchants who handled the produce. Then there was a London Agency to be set up, the number o. the personnel oi which had not ye; been decided oil. This agency to which the Government had the right to nominate one member, would be an Intelligence Department, ana would control sales of produce.

CLause 13 of the Act provided foi a, Board of Control oi dairy produce. This control might be either absolute or limited. Under absolute control, it would be possible for butter aim cheese to be exported and sold by the Board and the net proceeds divided amongst the producers as now. The other system' provided for control without interference with any arrangement for selling such as now existed. The opponents of the Bill were making as much capital as possible of the apparent compulsion ol the Act —this he would deal with later.

Clause 14 said that no sales might be made, or arrangements entereu into with shipping companies except through the medium of the Board. Clause 15 provided for a levy to cover the expense of running the Board. This levy ‘was not to exceed jd per lb in the case of butler, and l-16d in that of cheese and this would amount to about 8d per box of butter and lOd per crate oi cheese. This was provided for but. it was his honest opinion that it would not he necessary to collect nearly a s much as this.

The most important provision of the Act he had not yet referred to and that was the date of the Bill. This lie would quote in full: “This Act shall come into operation on a date to be specified in that behalf by the Governor-General, by proclamation approved in • Executive Council. A proclamation shall not issue under this section unless and until a majority in numbers of the producers, within the meaning of this Act, have, at ,a poll to be taken for the purpose as herein provided, voted in favour of a proposal that this Act should be brought into operation.” This meant that it rested with the dairymen of the country whether the BilJ should come into operation or not. A great responsibility rested on the farmers of to-day. What were those present, going to do. How were

they going to vote? Did they understand the position, sufficiently to sit dtfwn and confidently strike ouiti one line or the other—vote either for the Bill or against it? Had they .a clear conception of their duity to themselves and to the country ? He asked them again not at attach too much importance to the statements of those who were opposed to the Bill. Those people were the. ones who were responsible for the abuses the farmer was out. to rectify. They would- he better advised to listen to those who were certainly their friends rather than their enemies. BOGEY OF COMPULSION.

They might say that they made the produce and had a right to sell it how and where they liked. But it was not stated in this Bill that produce should be taken away from one merchant or another, it would be a long time before the dairy industry of New Zealand would run their own floors in London, and all the Board would do. would be to eliminate some of the .weaker men whose financial position was not such as to enable them to get the best results for their client*. The bogey of compulsion was more apparent than real j already there wa s compulsion in every department of life—compulsory education, compulsory health regulations ; to say nothing of compulsory grading of produce, which when it was brought in some year s ago was looked upon as an imposition. Yet no dairy fanner now had anything but good to say for the grading system. The only compulsion in the case.of the Control Bill would be to see that the. best results were obtained for produce. At present this was shipped, and the producer had to trust to the honesty of the merchant to get the best returns possible for it. He had nothing to say against their integrity buiti it was only human nature that they should desire to make as much as possible out of it. As one instance, under present conditions, a consignment of butter might be loaded in Auckland, and the boat then proceed to other ports to complete loading. In the meantime the documents went Home straight away, and the merchant paid out against them. It was possible that the documents would reach England before the consignment had left New Zealand, and it was not natural to suppose that the merchant did not charge interest on the money he had advanced against such a consignment. He did not show it under that head, but merely deducted it from, the price where it did not show. REGULATION: OF SUPPLY.

The contention that Control would fix the price in England Mr Harkness characterised us ridiculous. Everybody knew that they had to sell in the open market, where New Zealand produce was not such a factor as. to be able to sway prices greatly. What they would do, however, would be to so regulate shipments as to supply the Home market with regular consignments instead of as at present sending over 1,000,000 boxes of butter in one month and 100,000 next month. As soon as the merchants knew that a large shipment was due they promptly lowered prices, and efficient regulation was required. Freights also had risen from 5s per box in pre-war days, to 10s per box to-day, an increase of 100 per cent., as the result of the formation of a shipping combine in England. There was no reason why freight should not be very considerably reduced,, and this would be one ‘of the first concerns of the Board. Shipping freight to the amount of £1,250,000 had been paid on dairy produce last year,, and when people said that the dairymen of the country received £17,000,000 for their produce), they failed to take this into consideration. They also--, failed to count the £750,000 paid to the merchants in commission. In conclusion he would usk them to give the question their careful consideration, and at the poll which was to be taken vote solidly for control. (Applause). In answer to a question the speaker said that he had no doubt whatever that the benefits to be derived from control would more than Pay ■he few thousands necessary for salaries of officials. If they could do no more than affect a “ reduction in freights it would probably amount instead to hundreds of thousands.

Hearty votes of thanks to the speaker" for his address, and to the chair concluded the -meeting.