FARMERS IN CONFLICT

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 8, 31 March 1927, Page 13

FARMERS IN CONFLICT

dA IRY control issue PALMERSTON DISCUSSION delegation to board ( Special to THE SUN.) PALMERSTON NORTH, To-day. waS demonstrated at yesterday's inference that many dairy producers f-our free marketing: and complete urination of compulsory control. Gibson. Rahotu. moved "That. * conference is of opinion that the iatence of the Dairy Produce Board fa necessary in order adequately to ld -anise and arrange shipment of proto secure the most favourable hioDing freights and insurance rates, * advertise iully and systematically [?. country’s dairy produce, to enlarge listing narkets, to establish new e \rk«ts, md in other directions to esou: industry on a more efficient L The motion was seconded by Mr. L. I Bundle (Bell Block). J Mr. S. Mclntosh (Woodvllle) asked the reason why some factories were exempt from control and was informed that they were those having long-term contracts in force when control became operative. “I think the Control Board should be irined out,” stated Mr. Alpass, KoninL ■We established a National Dairy Association to help us. They could have carried the work out. Every man Knows that insurance rates would have ,-ome down without the Control Board and shipping companies would have had to automatically reduce their rates. I think the board is doing us no good.” The charge of 25 per cent, paid to agents under the old scheme, added the speaker, had been reasonable and was paid freely, but he feared that the Control Board was going to prove more expensive than private agents. Ho declared that many dairy farmers had been bled nearly white. Many of them will walk off their holdings this winter. Already nearby where he farmed at Ashhurst four dairymen had done so, while on the other side of the Manuwatu River, in the Siberia district, quite a number had given up the struggle. Mr. J. Boyce, referring to the chairman’s statement that certain companies were exempted from the provisions of ccntrol, stated that the general opinion was that Parliament had been responsible for this. A Voice: That is quite right. "That is not correct,” said the chairman. "Parliament had nothing to do with It. As a matter of fact the Control Board was above Parliament at the present time. (Laughter). I don't think it is necessary to tell you that you have only to read the daily papers to see that the only way we have of seeing who Is top-dog is when Parliament sits this year and votes on the question whether the compulsory clause is to be wiped out.” Mr. Gibson, Rahotu, said butter and cheese could not be held like other goods of commerce?. They must be sold jr deteriorate. Further, the farmer could not stand the financial strain of having his produce withheld indefinitely from sale. It was Impossible to do without the merchants and even the Control Board had had to deal with them. How could the Control Board, handling 25 per cent, of the dairy produce going Into England, dictate to the producers and sellers of the other 75 per cent.? Mr. A. C. Begg. Taradale, thought the position would be best met by the election of a new control board. Mr. F. Maule, New Zealand Dairy Union, Palmerston North, said the producers should have the right to sell their own produce. Other speakers stressed the fact that there was a lot of support for control but little for price-fixation. The motion was carried on the voices, but a show of hands was demanded, resulting in 81 in favour and 10 against, one delegate from each company voting. Mr. Sinclair, Opotiki, moved that the conference appoint a delegation of four representatives to wait upon the Control Foard at its meeting to-morrow to subrhit the views of the conference. The motion was carried. It was agreed that Mr. A. .T. Sinclair should wait bn the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and place the views of the conference before them. The following were appointed as a delegation to the Control Board: Messrs. Gibson, Rahotu; Murdoch. Jell’s factory: Leeson, Morrinsville; Rundle, Bell Block; A. J. Sinclair, Te Awamutu. On the motion of Mr. Bond, Bainpsse, a resolution was carried that the I’ress should be admitted to all meetings of the Dairy Control Board. THOSE EXEMPTIONS CONTROL BOARD MEETS parliament s authority (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON. To-day. I J* Dail *y Board met to-day but is ‘ c there has been no statement of the j, as the deliberations are n °t finished. deputation from a big farmers' eating qt Palmerston North yester- ! ay waited on the board, but a reply \ not , yet been drafted. Mr. Grounds has issued a statement p} to Mr. Nash’s assertion at the jjuerston conference. "I wish,” he* “to draw attention to the extraordinary statement reported % to have j^ en made by Mr. Nash at the meetJ, m Palmerston North yesterday, in “ he said that Parliament had noning to do with exemptions under the Produce Control Act. No ex.2fH? nyhave keen granted but those an* " Ca **y P rov ided for in legislation. JJ a only last week the board was ensaged before the Appeal Court in testis the validity of the proposed extenon of these exemptions. It was primed by opposition interests that if arliament was not responsible for the under legislation, who as. So far as information concernS exemptions is concerned a full list - those companies, and the tonnage 2. e< v te<3, was published in the board’s r^K lal or & lln "The Exporter” in Nov•iwi p * an( l thus has been fully avai!- - e to all producers.” LENGTHY SITTING deputation received reply in writing WELLINGTON, To-day. t 0 , he . pairy Control Board meetinp o'clnri. k ls * e( i a il the forenoon. At one tatlon » he chairman said that a depu- / ram the meeting of companies , tn tk . m<,rstnn North had waited luiiont oar ! 1 ar ><l presented the resoboarri ra tried at that meeting. The kT' ■ " - ep!y. which •veninjr made in writing, perhaps this I I