FREE-MARKET LEAGUE MAKES REPLY

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 57, 30 May 1927, Page 12

FREE-MARKET LEAGUE MAKES REPLY

DAIRY CONTROL ISSUE MR. GOODFELLOW’S STATEMENT “The failure of the Dairy Control Board’s price-fixation policy rests upon those members who refused to temper their ardour with judgment,” says a statement issued by the Free Marketing League, in reply to the statement of Mr. W. Goodfellow. As part of the responsibility for the failure of the scheme has been attributed by Mr. Goodfellow to the Free Marketing League, Mr. A. J. Sinclair, honorary organiser for the league in the Auckland Province, has written defining the position of the league and its views on certain aspects ot Mr. Goodfellow’s statement:

“In allocating the responsibility for the present fiasco, Mr. Goodfellow gives the league a prominence which it modestly disclaims. The policy of the board has not been modified in the slightest degree by our efforts, nor have we been in any way responsible for the dissension on the London agency. The full power of the board was brought into operation, and the responsibility for failure rests entirely upon those members who refused to temper their ardour for reform with discretion and sound judgment. It will always be a matter for regret that the efforts to defer absolute control, made by 113 'dairy companies at the Dominion conference in April, 1926, were arbitrarily overridden. MR. lORNS AWAITED

“Mr. Goodfellow’s statement that the position in London would have rectified itself if the board had adhered rigidly to its policy of pricefixing for a few weeks longer is in striking contrast with the memorandum addressed to the London agency of the board on February 18, and signed by 22 of the 29 agents who arc handling allotments of New Zealand produce. It also conflicts with a cable leceivea from Mr. W. A. lorns, chairman cf the London agency, stating that the decision to abandon pricefixing had averted a catastrophe in the industry. Mr. lorns will arrive in the Dominion this week, and his views upon this aspect will be interesting. “Possibly the most far-reaching statement made by Mr. Goodfellow is the implied reflection upon ihe dairy farmers of New Zealand when he says that the present method of election—one man, one vote —is responsible for placing the wrong type of man upon the board. Mr. Goodfellow’s scheme, which has been consistently opposed by the Free Marketing League, seeks to deprive the individual producer of his vote, and vest «t in the dLectors of dairy companies, who would c. *ct a council of 30 on a tonnage basis, this council in turn selecting the hoard from among its own number. This scheme is known as the American “college” method, and we oppose it because it would place unlimited power in the hands of a small but united minority, which, by a proces« of bargaining and negotiation, might be able to dominate the election of th-j whole board.

“It also possesses this weakness: If the individual producer lias not sufficient common sense and intelligence to elect the right type of man to the Control Board, obviously be ’s equally incapable of electing in his own company those directors upon who'.e intelligence Mr. Goodfellow is prepared to rely. Mr. Ooodfellow’s argument, is one which will not be viewed favourably by the dairy farmers. VAGUE ON F. 0.8. SALES

“Unfortunately, Mr. Good fellow’s statement is vague upon the one essential feature necessary to give the industry a lead at the present juncture. While he favours the abandonment of absolute control, and forecasts the formation of marketing associations on the lines of • those operating in Denmark, Cana Jo, anid other countries, he does not specifically state that dairy companies in New Zealand will have the free and unfettered rights possessed in other countries with regard to the disposal of produce. Any intention, for instance, to prohibit f.o.b. selling under the new scheme will intensify the dissension which Mr. Goodfellow oeplores. Judicious f.o.b. sales nave been a powerful factor in the past m enabling small dairy companies to hold their own against their more powerful rivals, who find thin system of marketing unworkable. The argument that f.o.b. selling plays into the hands of speculators has been proved to be a fallacy of the “sour grapes type used by large companies to the detriment of their smaller competitors.”