PRODUCERS’ HYSTERIA

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 4, 26 March 1927, Page 10

PRODUCERS’ HYSTERIA

CALMER OUTLOOK NEEDED

CONTROL BOARD’S DUTY (From Our Own Corn'espondent.) “This meeting of the members of the South Auckland Dairy Association respectfully requests the Control Board to call a meeting of producers’ representatives to discuss the position that has arisen in regard to the Dominion’s dairy produce, and that all members of the Control Board in New Zealand be present at a meeting to be held at as early a date as possible,” was the text of an important resolution passed by a meeting of the South Auckland Dairy Association in Hamilton yesterday afternoon.

Those present were Messrs. Dynes Fulton, chairman of directors of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Messrs. H. Sterling, general manager of the New Zealand Co-opera-tive Dairy Company, Budden, Kakepuku Company, Wills and Anderson, Cambridge Company, Darrell, Tatua Company, and Ferguson, Norfolk Company. An apology for absence was received from the representative of the Bruntwood Dairy Company, but he forwarded an opinion practically on the same lines as that voiced by Mr. Sterling. “ Bitter heckling over the corpse of price-fixing,” was predicted as the outcome of the coming Palmerston North conference of dairy company representatives when Mr. H. H. Sterling introduced the matter. The Palmerston North conference, proceeded Mr. Sterling, would not help to remedy the position, as it would not be a constructive meeting. No opportunity was being given the opposite party for an adequate representation of its views. The same would apply if the latter were to call a meeting. Conferences convened by partisans of one side only on such an important question were of no practical value. The best means of overcoming the difficulty was for a meeting to be called by a properly constituted authority—the Control Board —and any efforts in that direction should not be left in the hands of a section of the producers. If the Control Board convened a meeting of producers’ representatives, not only would both parties of producers be able to have a proper opportunity of voicing their opinions, but the board members might be able to educate those present to an agreement with their policy if they could place satisfactory reasons before them. It was only a proper thing that the board should come forward at such a meeting and disclose the motives which actuated it in the conclusion it had arrived at. The Reason Why. The statement of Mr. Grounds was evidently made as that of Mr. Grounds personally, and not that of the chairman of the Control Board. The producers were entitled to know by what deductive reasoning the board had arrived at its decision, and be able to have a free and frank discussion on the merits of the case. A meeting such as that suggested continued Mr. Sterling, would give the producers who were at variance e-r-'-n time to organise sufficient representation, which was precluded from the Palmerston North conference. The latter meeting would simply continue, or have a tendency in the direction of the more or 1 less hysterical attitude of most o' the producers. It was the duty of the Control Board to call a meeting. Hysteria should be reduced to a minimum, and be subordinated to calm and clear thinking as far as possible. Of course, it was almost inevitable that there -would be a few ripples on the surface. Criticism Not Opportune. Mr. Wells, the Cambridge Cooperative Dairy Company representative, stated that he had been a keen supporter of the Control Board, but never approved of its going marketing, as he thought it did not possess sufficient funds to bring that to a successful conclusion. This was a critical stage for the opponents (if

that was their correct classification) of the board to protest strongly as it would belittle the board’s credit in the eyes of the English merchants and result in loss to the suppliers The time was not opportune now to harass the board in its operations while the country’s produce was on the markets. “The sane policy of any suppliers or board of directors at the present would be to allow the Control Board to pursue its methods while the dairying industry was in full swing," said Mr Anderson, another representative of the Cambridge Co-operative Dairy Co To allow a scare among the producers would be fatal, and the industry would expei'ience such a debacle as it had never seen before. Although he had always been in opposition to the Control Board he could never quite understand the retrograde movement of the members who passed the resolution to abolish price-fixing. For suppliers to be led away from the board at the present juncture would be detrimental to the industry. The Kakepuku Co.’s representative, Mr. Budden, stated that for a long time his company took up a neutral attitude toward the Control Board, but following the recent decision to abolish price-fixing, they had altered their opinion. If price-fixing was to be done without, why not do without control altogether? Absolute control had solidified the opposition. Mr. Darrell (Tatua Co-operative Dairy Co.) said the time was the very worst at present to oppose the functioning of the Control Board. He would like to hear the board’s explanation of its abandonment of pricefixing before he condenmed its action. Despite the abolition of price-fixing it could still do a great deal for the pro ducers. He would continue to support control until it was proved that his confidence was misplaced. It was essential that the board should call a producers’ meeting to obtain a real and impartial expression of opinion on a matter of such momentous importance to the industry. Other Views The attitude of the New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company, said Mr Dynes Fulton, chairman of directors, had been fully outlined by Mr. Sterling He did not see why any importance should be attached to the deliberations of the Palmerston North conference The Control Board was the legitimate organisation of the producers, and because it had changed its policy that was no reason why a section of the producers should call a meeting on their own initiative to discuss future policy. It was the bounden duty of the Control Board to call a meeting of dairy representatives at Wellington and put the position plaintly before them. The producers should insist on such a meeting to consider the matter impartially. The position was so serious as to warrant a calm outlook, even consideration and a discussion from a Dominion viewpoint, excluding individual company interest. Mr. Fulton then moved the resolution, as announced above, and it was carried unanimously. It was also resolved to call another meeting of the association when a definite reply was received from the Control Board, and to take no action in connection with being represented at the Palmerston North conference.