The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1920. DAIRY PRODUCE MARKETING.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 June 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1920. DAIRY PRODUCE MARKETING.

It is to be regretted that the leaders of the dairy industry have not seen fit to take producers more fully into their confidence in regard to the new marketing scheme they' are so enthusiastically espousing, for the change they advocate is so revolutionary that the fullest information ought to be made available before asking producers to come to a decision. True, meetings have been held in various centres, and an outline of the scheme given by some of the dairy leaSers and the representatives of the English Wholesale Co-opera-tive Society, but these meetings, for reasons that have not been made apparent, have not been open to the Press/and so the producers who have attended have had to rely upon their memories for the details of the scheme the adoption of which may mean so much to them. This policy of sec-

rec'y, we can say without reservation, is not in the best interests o! the producers, nor of the country. If the scheme is a sound one, its supporters should welcome and not fear the fullest publicity or criticism. It affects the interests —indeed, the livelihood—of every dairyman in New Zealand, and he is entitled to the fullest information before committing himself to the scheme. Where such reticence has been evinced, one naturally looks with suspicion upon the scheme, but it may well be that its adoption is in the best interests of j the dairymen. If the leaders would make public their reasons for advocating it we would" be better able to arrive at an accurate judgment, but from the information so far available we must confess We are by no means convinced that factories would be acting wisely in instructing their delegates to next week's meeting at Palraerston North to support the scheme. They should act with caution, and endeavor to have the determination of it postponed until they are quite sure that the suggested change is in their best interests. Now about the scheme. The suggestion is to form a company, or control board, registered in England; it is to consist of four or six directors, half being members of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the other half of members of the N.Z. National Dairy Association, this board acting as the medium for selling the dairy produce, and fixing prices from time to time. The National Dairy Association is to have a nominal capital of £IOO,OOO, about 10 per cent, being called up. It is stated the Board will sell to whomsoever they please, and not necessarily to the C.W.S. The idea is to make use of the retail connection of the C.W.S., whose membership is said to be twenty million persons. We are told that the financing'will be as heretofore, advances being made against shipping documents. One or two questions will naturally arise in the minds of producers who give the matter any thought. First of all, how can the representatives of the C.W.S. be sellers of our produce and buyers at the same time? Naturally, they wilt want to buy as cheaply as possible, and will use their wits and weight on the board to that end. The New Zealand representatives, of course, will strive to obtain the best price for their people. Why not have a selling board entirely composed of the representatives of the producers, if we are to break away from the old systqm of selling to Home firms' representatives in New Zealand? Denmark does so, and, judging by the prices secured, not without success. We are told that the reason for having representatives of' the C.W.S. ou the selling board is to have the advantage of the Society's retail connection. At the same time we are informed that no firms will be debarred from purchasing from the selling board. Have not the other produce firms retail connections? If so, why not also allow their representatives on the selling board? If no preference is to be given in selling there can be no ; logical reason for denying them a 1 voice like that of their opponents ' (the C.W.S.) in the fixing of . prices. There must be other reaioUteJjriJflosed. constitution

of the selling board, and producers have a right to know them before binding" themselves to the C.W.S. Another point, who is responsible for the financing of the produce? That, it is stated, is to go on as before, advances made against shipping documents. Someone manifestly must bridge the gap. Is it the C.W.S.? If it is. then the New Zealand producers will forthwith place themselves under an obligation to them. Is that desirable? There may be compensating advantages, and if there were less secrecy about the whole thing they would be known and properly assessed. The producer deserves to get the highest market price for his produce, for no one works harder, nor has in the past got so little in return for the amount of labor he has to put in. For that reason he can afford to take no risk, and he should not be asked to. The scheme may be all that its promoters say it is, and all the points that can be raised against it may be satisfactorily explained, but our counsel to dairymen is to be very careful, and be quite satisfied that the scheme will be productive of the results promised before giving it the endorsement asked for.