MR GROUNDS REPLY TO CRITICS.

Shannon News, 6 March 1925, Page 4

MR GROUNDS REPLY TO CRITICS.

CONTROL IN LONDON OK NEW ZEALAND. Mr. Grounds' reply to criticism published in a recent issue goes to show that the Chairman of the Dairy Control Board has lost rione of his blandness of speech and suavity of argument and still proves an opponent worthy of his steel. At ,the same time we cannot help, thinking, that a few less well-timed phrases and polite generalities and a little more real ana genuine information would have served the cause better and would have gone further towards gaining the confidence of producers. . Mr. Grounds is taking his critics to task for intentionally or unintentionally mis-interpreting his report. "The' overseas delegation, he says, never attempted to give a full and complete explanation of all details leading up to their conclusions, but I submit that a more caTeful reading of the / report would have avoided much of the criticism and the anxieties which quite naturally arise from such criticism.” The repot-t was read and studied by practically every paper in the Dominion arid even in the light of Mr. Grounds’ further remarks was correctly and rightly understood. The mere information “that every sound firm or organisation wishing to serve as distributors of New Zealand produce should be given an opportunity of proving their sales capacity” docs not alter the revolutionary principle underlying absolute control. The unalterable fact remains that under his scheme the Board would take actual possession of all produce as soon as it leaves the factory. In other words it would pool £20,000,000 of produce for all purposes of shipping, distributing and selling. An Example. The Australian wool-pool known as B.A.W.R.A. has been mentioned as a case in point. Although the taking over of large quantities of wool disclosed few difficulties, it was live years before this body made a final settlement How long does Mr. Grounds propose to keep factories waiting for a final payment and what staff does he think is required to disentangle the multitude of shipments, brands, quality h.nd quantities comprised in £20,worth of dairy produce? On the all-important question of finance, the Chairman of the Control Board is profoundly silent, but it is evident that in this connection he propose to make use of the "existing channels of distribution.” At the same time he maintains that “the London board should have the power to vary the flow of the produce when it arrives if they think necessary.” It would have allayed much anxiety and avoided many arguments had Mr. Grounds explained his method of finance, if he has one. In the absence of such, it can only be concluded, that he intends making use of the Tooley street Houses. Yet he proposes to vary the flow of produce, in London by diverting shipments and storing supplies on a large scale. On the one hand he accepts the Tooley street merchants, advance-payments in New Zealand, while on the other he denies the lienholders rights and privileges. Mr. Grounds must know that the legal right in the property rests in the hands of those who are making the advances until such .time as the debt is discharged. To accept the I merchant’s money and then deny him his privileges is neither logical or equitable,, and any scheme founded on such unsound basis must be doomed to failure. Dispense With New Zealand Agents. Reading' between the lines of the chairman’s report and his subsequent statement, it is evidently intended that the Board should take the place and assume the functions of the numerous agents acting in New Zealand on behalf of British Houses. What staff and organisation does Mr. Grounds think is required to do this work efficiently and how lo’ag will it take him to bring about such organisation. We might quote B.A.W.R.A. again, only that on this body were some of the world’s keenest and ablest business men versed in every phase of commerce and finance

For those who counselled a policy of moderation and limited control, the Chairman of the Control Board has but disparaging remarks which will carry little • weight. He agrees that a regulation of shipping is desirable but maintains that sound allocations cannot be made three and four mouths ahead. He ignores entirely the success achieved by the Meat Board in this direction. There is no objection voiced by Mr. Grounds to such a scheme which does not apply with equal force to the Meat Board and which has riot been successfully overcome by the latter. New Markets. The same argument applies to the developing of new centres of distribution and opening of new markets. The Meat Board has done both and only lately we have been told of a large shipment of meat being made to Italy.

From what we can see tile whole j matter resolves itself into a question j of controlling' and regulating the Doi minion’s dairy produce in New I Zealand or London and we are com* | pulled to suggest that there is an in- • tluence at work, which, if successful, j will bring no good to the producers of this country. A serious attempt is being made by a handful of men chosen ) t\'om the body of producers who, j without professing to possess either experience or ability, wish to revolutionise a system of marketing and finance which it has taken generations to build up. As Mr. Grounds says, “it is simply substituting one gamble for another” only the gamble Mr. Grounds wishes to substitute may mean life or death to the producers. Important Issue at Next Meeting. Control in New Zealand or London will therefore be the issue at the next meeting of the

Board and the producers should well understand the significance of both. On the one hand we have a safe arid sound and perfectly legitimate means of controlling our overseas supplies by regulating our shipping in New Zealand on similar lines as the Meat Board. Mr. Grounds disclaims any desire or delusions about fixing the level of prices on the London market. Our monthly production is reasonably well the capacity of the English market can be sufficiently gauged to efficiently regulate supplies from this end. This iriay bo do'n-e without great expenditure, huge (Staffs and complete organisations for which as a rule the producer has to pay dearly.

Absolute Control in London On the other hand, control in London means the scrapping of the whole of our present system of marketing. Though the present channels of distribution may be made use of owing to the uncertainty of the system and inevitable interference, London Houses will be induced to look to other countries for supplies. A huge pool' of dairy produce will be the result, and large quantities of butter and cheese held in London for a rise—one cannot call it anything else—will most certainly antagonise and prejudice British consumers towards New Zealand will have a very unsettling and detrimental effect on the London land produce. Moreover, the holding of huge quantities of produce in Engmarket, and will eventually defeat the very object for which it was intended, viz,, a rise in value. The risks and dangers involved in such a gigantic scheme axe by no means commfensurale with the advantages and benefits to be derived therefrom and when making a comparison with the simplicity of controlling shipping and distribution in New Zealand, producers may be excused for expressing doubts and' anxiety.