DAIRY PRODUCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1922, Page 5

DAIRY PRODUCE.

CONTROL SCHEME FAVORED. DECISION OF CONFERENCE. LEGISLATION ASKED FOR. ON LINES OF MEAT ACT. (By Wire.—Special to News.) Wellington, Last Night. At what was described by the Minister of Agriculture as the largest and most representative conference of representatives of the dairying industry held in New Zealand, which took place this afternoon and this evening, a scheme favoring immediate legislation to give producers control of the shipment and marketing of produce on lines similar to those exercised by the Meat Control Act, was carried with but four dissenting voices in a gathering comprising 200 delegates from dairy factories, many of whom carried proxies giving powers of voting for other factories that could not be represented otherwise. Mr. Arthur Morton, president of the National Dairy Association, was elected to the chair, and the Hon. W. Nosworthy (Minister of Agriculture) was present, together with a large number of members of Parliament. The Minister briefly addressed the conference. “As far as the Government is concerned,” said the Minister, “we are ready to help you to improve your position. The outlook for the dairy industry to-day is very good. It is possible there may be two or three good years, and then the competition of Siberia may affect us on the London market, rendering our position less secure than at present. We are on the eve of prosperity, and this is the time, therefore, to put your house in order and not wait till another slump comes. (Hear, hear.) You should organise and take time by the fora lock, and be ready for any ‘blast’ that may happen in the future. On behalf of the Government, I wish you well, and whatever your decision, the Government will leave no stone unturned to carry out your wishes, if you are unanimous and can say the dairy producers are behind you.”

“SOME MEASURE OF CONTROL." A long discussion followed on the method of voting. It was decided, on the motion of Mr. J. R. Corrigan (Hawera), that all accredited representatives from dairy companies and members of Parliament be allowed to vote. Mr. T. A. Buckingham, president of the South Island Dairy Association, said the question was not a new one. Some means were necessary to get their products on the markets of the world profitably, and they were up against a problem 4ince the commandeer ceased. In the Old Country employment was slack and they could not expect prices to keep up. They must have some method of control to stabilise them. Not one producer sj;as satisfied. He moved: “That the present method of dealing with dairy products being unsatisfactory, and not in the best interests of dairy producers and the Dominion, this meeting of representatives of dairy producers is of opinion that some measure of control that will coordinate shipping and marketing is desirable, and asks the Government to promote legislation similar to that of the Meat Control Act. Mr. Booth (Temuka) seconded. In reply to various requests, Mr. 0. J. Hawken (Taranaki) gave details of the powers of the Meat Board. There was little difference between that board and what was proposed at the conference. It controlled the export of meat from the time it was put into the freezing works till it was sold at Home. It found its sphere of usefulness so great that it did not find it necessary to put into force the compulsory provisions of the Act. BENEFITS TO PRODUCERS. In regard to shipping, they had the best card in the pack, in that they controlled freights. That one function was worth a great deal to the people. It was brought about by the fact of the producers being threatened with trusts and combines, and they needed unified control. Tooley Street were not the right people to do the business, and what was needed was power to control them. The Meat Board had that power. If a merchant were speculating on the pretence of being an agent, the board could say he could not get any products. That power would, of course, be used with discretion.

The National Dairy Association had no control over what each factory was doing, but the resolution before the conference would give that, power, which could not be got in 20 years under present conditions struggling among themselves. Many people in the trade were not acting in the best interests of the farmer, but when proper control was secured it would be found they were necessary, they could be worked with, and they could be made to benefit the industry. A feature of the Meat Control Act was unity of control, but it allowed no tinkering with the local markets.

EXAMPLE OF MEAT BOARD. Mr. Adam Hamilton, M.P. (Southland), a member of the Meat Producers’ Board, suggested the conference should consider and affirm a principle rather than details; The Meat Board worked out the details later. Of eight members of the Meat Board, five were elected by producers, that is sheep and cattle owners. Rolls would be prepared according to the stock statistics and a democratic method of election was guaranteed producers. Two were appointed by the Government, and the eighth was appointed by the stock and station agents. Their powers were almost absolute and confiscatory, and if the necessity arose the board might assume ownership on behalf of the producers. Without a compulsory clause the board would be useless.

If the dairy producers adopted the same principle, he presumed the board would be elected on the basis of factory output. Possibly it would not be necessary to have other sections of the community represented. It w’ould be a question also whether the proposed board should be in conjunction or subsidiary to the Meat Board, perhaps they could be on parallel lines and I deal unitedly with common interests, such as shipping, handling, insurance and such items. Hitherto the dairy industry was I better organised than the meat industry, i but now the reverse was the case. The : National Dairy Association and the South Island Association had a certain amount of power, but no power to sign a shipping agreement, which it was imperative to have. “We feel,” said Mr. Hamilton, “that we want the whole refrigerating cargo of New Zealand in one control, so that we may speak with a united voice to the shipping companies. In the past the people making contracts with’the companies had little interest in freight, which was paid by the producer, but now no one could make a freight contract without reference to the board. You w?nt a board of those lines.

The board has not been set up to create an artificial rise in prices, but to secure world values. Some factories had been selling at such higgedly piggedly prices in competition with each other, that unity was needed, and it was very valuable to have the best and latest information at the disposal of all factories and producers. “We have found under the Meat Board that meat is handled much better than before. Ido not see why the Meat Board in London should not unite with you. Your exports go out without supervision, which would be ensured to you under this scheme." Mr. Hamilton concluded with details of the method of levying for financing the Meat Producers’ Board. A sum of £20,000 a year was brought in by a levy of Id per carcase on mutton and lamb and 2d on beef.

QUESTION OF COMPULSION.

Mr. McManaway (Rata) hoped the individuality of brand would not be lost. He asked whether it was intended to establish a superfine grade. He thought every dairy producer in New Zealand should support the proposal. “I think," he said, “the stick will not be big enough without compulsion.” Mr. Nash (Palmerston) asked if every factory would’ have to be brought. under the board, and would it mean the abolition of the Natoinal and South Island Associations, to which levies were at present paid? The chairman replied that the control board would only relate to shipping. All dairy produce would come within the provisions of the contract with the board, and the remaining provisions of the Act would not be compulsory. With regard to the associations, they had other functions that would no doubt justify their continuance ; their usefulness might be largely increased, in fact.

Mr. Gibson (Rahotu) said he strongly opposed the scheme. There was an attempt to count him out, and he was frequently interrupted during the course of his speech. He thought it extremely unlikely that Tooley Street would allow itself to be controlled by the board. Mr. Agar (Christchurch) sought further details of the scheme. He approved of the principle, but thought the draft Bill should be presented to factories. Mr. Corrigan: I am glad we have converted you. | Mr. Agar: You never converted me; I always opposed Toloey Street, but it is possible for one section to elect all the members of the board. We should not be carried away. Sir Heaton Rhodes represented Ellesmere, and if the dairy-farmers there did not support the proposal they felt the matter was so important that they would put a man up against him. Mr. Corrigan: That is right.

MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Bidwill (Wairarapa) said the election should be on a basis of the number of suppliers, irrespective of the quantity produced. He strongly supported the scheme and asked for a committee to be appointed to go into details. Mr. Hawken suggested that a committee should draw up details of the proposed Bill. Mr. Moss (Eketahuna) said the Prime Minister had expressed the opinion that the industry should have a board separate from the Meat Board. Mr. D. Jonce, M.P., chairman of the Meat Producers’ Board, who was present, was asked by Mr. Agar whether it was a fact that his hoard could take the control of meat under section 10 of the Meat Control Act. Mr. Jones: That is correct. The Meat Control Board could put their compulsory powers into force to-morrow and there must be a penalty if a meat company refused to give control over their meat. The board, however, would not enforce the compulsory provision without the express approval of tfffe Government. The motion was carried with only four dissenting voices. The delegates had been discussing for some time whether they should commit their factories, many of them stating they had come without such a mandate. Mr. F. Ranford (Stratford) asked the Minister, in view of the fact that some delegates were not authorised to commit their companies, would the Government introduce legislation at the bidding of a majority of the conference. Mr. Nosworthy: The Government will be guided by the resolution of the conference. I cannot understand any man coming here not knowing what he is going to do. What is he sent here for? A man that has not the courage and determination to carry out what he considers right is not the sort of man that should be sent to a conference of this kind. Voices: Rub it in.

A SERIOUS QUESTION. The Minister: It is not a question to be played with or to be treated as a side-show. You have for your guide ; the experience of the meat people, who were in a worse position than you. They i called a conference of delegates, sat down to business and asked the Government to consider their scheme. The Government responded and put through the Meat Control Act and. put them in a position to go ahead. A voice. What has it done? The Minister (Warmly): It put sheep owners in a position to have legislation and the board is responsible to them to investigate everything connected with their industry, to deal with the shipping companies and everything else. It has done what twenty years’ muddling never did. “I have been asked a question and will answer it straight away," continued the Minister. “It is for you to say whether you want legislation to put farmers into the position of talking to Tooley Street instead of Tooley Street talking to you. You have the chance now. If you side-track the question and go back undecided to leave it to boards of directors Parliament i may have closed. I can’t understand what semblance of busi- | ne.«s men would get up and say I what they are going to do. I would act pretty quick and I expect you will | do t hat too. Mr. J. Gibson (Rahotu): It is a good point to put the question before a Parliament that is dying. With all due respect to the Minister his remarks savour of an electioneering speech. Mr. Nosworthy: I was asked a question and I replied. I certainly repudiate anything in regard to electioneering. I am only animated by one desire, and that is for the producers to do the right thing for the benefit of themselves and the Dominion. It may be a dying Parliament, but not a dying Government. At this stage of his remarks the conference gave three cheers for the Minister. Continuing, he said: “The Government would not be dropping and dying to say they would meet Parliament, nor weak kneed to say they would give you legislation if you asked for it. You want a strong Government to say that, not one that would go about with its head down looking as if it were dead and out. Changes are world-wide. The commercial inter-

ests and general conditions under which the world labored before the war have absolutely changed; the economic outlook is altered, and we have to adapt ourselves entirely to the new circumstances and conditions and make the best of the new world in finance and’ other ways. Don’t get up in a earping spirit and say you are going to fight for certain interests only. All interests have undergone an economic change.” Mr. Corrigan (Hawera): Even Reform. The Minister: Yes, Reform with a capital R. It is only by getting down to it and putting all your energy and ability into what you can do that you will succeed.”—(Cheers.) COMMITTEE APPOINTED. The following prodoucers’ committee was appointed to draft details of the Bill:—. . Auckland.—Messrs. W. Grounds (Hokianga), E. R. Harding (Northern Wairoa), Stanton (Taumarunui), Wells (Cambridge), R. Somerville (Te Kuiti'L W. Goodfellow (Hamilton), W. W. Motion (Waiuku), C. Buchanan (Paeroa), McMillan (Tauranga). Taranaki. —Messrs. A. Morton, H. D. Forsyth, J. R. Corrigan. J. S. Connett, and J. Marx. Wellington.—Messrs. Broadbelt. W. Irons, J. C. Ewington, T. Moss and McManaway. Hawke’s Bay.—Mr. J. Gilday. Canterbury.—Messrs. C. P. Agar, J. R. Thacker. A. Guild. Otago. Messrs. S. Bowman, A. P. Fleming, W. Bryant. Southland.—Messrs. T. jR. Eades, T. Buckingham, J. S. GtUt* and John Dunlop