DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 September 1922, Page 4

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

No exception can be taken to the resolutions adopted by the meeting of dairy factory representatives at New Plymouth on Friday in connection with the proposed dairy control. The first asks the Government to set up a special Parliamentary committee to take evidence in connection with the proposed pool; and the second requests that when the Bill is drafted it be submitted to the various dairy companies before it goes to Parliament. At the same time, there is no reason why a digest of the Bill couid not be published in the papers, so as to save time. It is only right that the fullest publicity should be to the proposals, and the opportunity afforded all sections concerned to express their views upon them. At the meeting on Friday strong opposition was manifested towards the scheme, Which was to be expected from

a meeting called for that express purpose. Mr. E. Maxwell, who was the principal speaker, subjected the scheme to strong criticism, some of which, it would seein from Mr. J. Connett’s subsequent statement, was based on a misapprehension of the position. For instance, Mr. Connett said it was not intended to control all the produce sent Home, at least at the present time, and that it was not intended to interfere ‘with the present distributing channels. “It was,” he added, “simply carrying the spirit of co-operation further in an endeavor to lessen their weaknesses, and bring about better shipping facilities.” It was stated by another delegate to the recent conference that the proposed Control Board cannot compel any factory to follow any course suggested by the proposed Control Board without Government sanction. If these statements are correct, is there any real cause for alarm ? The idea seems to be to bring about unity of control in respect of the export trade, and to endeavor to minimise handling costs between the factory and the overseas consumer. These very desirable improve merits have been stressed by dairy companies for years, yet when an attempt is made to put them into effect there is strong opposition offered. In fact the proposals are condemned before they are fully known.. For this, of course, the promoters of the scheme may be largely to blame, for they should have taken the producers more into their confidence and fully explained the features of the proposed control. We would strongly urge them now to take the earliest opportunity to place details before the producers, particularly in Taranaki, who would be well advised to keep an open mind on the matter and not allow themselves to be prejudiced in advance against a course which might ■prove to be in their best interests.