DAIRY PRODUCE POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1922, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE POOL.

SOME QUESTIONS ASKED. • ■</ Mr. E. Maxwell, Oaonui, writes to the editor of the News as follows: As the above is of very great importance to all dairy farmers, I wish, with your kind permission, to endeavor to obtain by mecliuiq of yo’Sr columns certain information which I failed to obtain, though asked for, from the promoters of the scheme at meeting. Whaf is desired are direct answers in elucidation of the following:— The National Dairy circular No. 54, of April 19, clause 6, reads: “The Government to introduce the necessary legislation to make compulsory the marketing of all export dairy produce through the companies,” etc. The National Dairy circular No. 52, of April 7, clause 3, is as follows: “That the usual channels of distribution be used in Great Britain, and distributors who are now handling the produce would continue to do so, subject to the approval of the London board of directors.” Both the above declarations were emphasised by the promoters at Wednesday’s meeting, and, further, they stated explicitly that it was not desired or intended to in any way interfere with the present channels of distribution; that as at present the Tooley Street merchants (the term no doubt was intended to embrace all handlers of dairy produce in the United Kingdom) would continue to handle the produce, and that they desired to make it clear that there was no intention to take away their business, only the agents out here would lose theirs. Further, Mr. Morton very distinctly and emphatically' that the Pool Board did not intend at first, or would not at any time, establish their own “floor.” This was made quite clear, and can only mean that neither at first nor at any time later will they hold any sort of auction or competitive sale, or any sale at all.

Now we have the following: (1) Only the Pool Board will market; (2) the present marketers and channels of marketing will not be interfered with; (3) the Pool Board will not, at any time, market (have their own “floor”)*.

Nos. 2 and 3 are flat contradictions of No. 1.

I ask for clear answers to the 'following :

(a) Is No 1 correct, or are Nos. 2 and 3 correct?

(b) If No. 1 is incorrectly expressed and the Pool Board is to be a pricefixing board and not a marketing board and Nos. 2 and 3 are correct, then how, in the face of No. 3, is the Pool Board going to get rid of the produce?”

An unravelling of this tangle of contradictions will be most interesting, because no doubt somewhere within lies the essence of the scheme.

It would appear: (1) That all competition is to be done away with; (2) the Pool Board is to be a price-fixing board; (3) we will have to rely solely on the intelligence and business capacity, and necessarily restricted sources of information of the Pool Board to judge or guage the markets, or, in other words, we will have the judgment of the two or three men appointed by the New Zealand Board as against the ability, business experience and resources of all the dairy produce firms in London, in the west, north, and elsewhere; (4) having fixed the price—no further procedure is indicated—it must always be quite optional with the’ dairy produce merchants as to whether they will take any, let alone all the produce at the price fixed, or for the matter of that, at any price; (5) the merchants handle produce from all sources and will carry on their business whether they have New Zealand produce or not; (6) The New Zealand agents will be done away with. It is stated they cost J per cent., and in their place we are to have a company in which a million of our money will be sunk, a New Zealand board, staff, organisation and office, and the same again in London. The combined expenses of these, there is no doubt, will many times over exceed the cost of the New Zealand agents and the English firms; (7) how the directors, officials, etc., of the pool board are likely to compare with the experienced business firms that now handle our produce, can be judged, I think, by the achievements of the National Dairy Association , the Box Company, the Bacon Company, etc.; (8) as the promoters of the scheme appear to be able to assure us as to what the Pool Board will or will not do, and from other indications it would seem a fit- , ting designation would be, “N.D.A. (plus Mr. Goodfellow), alias C.W'jS. combine, alias Dairy Producers’ Combine.”