Mr. Goodfellow Has Company's Support

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 368, 31 May 1928, Page 12

Mr. Goodfellow Has Company's Support

DIRECTORS CRITICISE BOARD MARKET SCHEME DEFENDED HAMILTON, To-day. The directors of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company have endorsed the attitude of their chairman, Mr. W. Goodfellow, toward the Dairy Control Board and its chairman, Mr. W. Grounds. In a statement issued yesterday, the company supports Mr. Goodfellow in his allegations of inaccuracy against Mr. Grounds, as well as criticising the board as not only oppressive but as of little use to the industry. The boards’ policy it describes as “the control fiasco.” The statement, which was prepared by Messrs. H. H. Sterling and Dynes Fulton, deals largely with the establishment and operation of Amalgamated Dairies, Ltd., and accuses Mr. Grounds of distorting the facts in respect of this company’s marketing policy. There was no use in disguising the fact that the directors and the company’s suppliers generally were now very dissatisfied with the Control Board, which they considered was not only very costly, but also of little value to the industry, as at present functioning, the statement says. ORIGINAL SCHEME SOUND It was only after the Control Board had failed in its major objective that the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company formed Amalgamated Dairies, Ltd. Prior to that date, the company had given 100 per ’cent, support to the board and its policy of absolute control. By means of a very satisfactory agreement, the New Zealand Co-oper-ative Dairy Company had now permanently secured the services of the two most experienced men available in the dairy industry, who otherwise would have drifted off into other occupations, as a result of the control fiasco. Both these gentlemen had left no stone unturned in their efforts to make the national scheme of marketing an unqualified success, and were still convinced of the soundness of the original proposals. Amalgamated Dairies was a partnership arrangement between the dairy company and Messrs. Goodfellow and Wright, and could not be dominated by either side, but could be terminated by either side, if unsatisfactory. The principle, and the various agreements with the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company and associated companies afforded an absolute guarantee of service on a commission basis and the fullest possible protection. It further definitely excluded the right to private trade in New Zealand dairy produce, either in this country or elsewhere. Both service agreements contained the following clause:—“Shall not during his engagement hereunder buy or sell on his own behalf New Zealand dairy produce or any other goods in which the company is trading.” “NOTHING BETTER IN SIGHT” The agreement between the New Zealand Dairy Company and Amalgamated Dairies was fully outlined, and articles of association quoted. Mr. Fulton, on the company’s behalf, added that the statements made by Mr. Grounds were calculated to arouse suspicion and distrust where none existed, and it would appear that the only purpose of such remarks was deliberately to prevent the success of the Amalgamated Dairies’ marketing organisation, notwithstanding the fact that their scheme was identical in principle, but without compulsion, to that previously advocated by the Control Board.

No good purpose would be served by causing further disruption in the industry, but he v/ould say emphatically that the directors of the New Zealand Dairy Company, to a man, were convinced that the Amalgamated Dairies had put forward a sound constructive marketing scheme, and that there was nothing better in sight.