THE DAIRY POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 September 1922, Page 8

THE DAIRY POOL.

IS IT ADVISABLE? FACTORY DIRECTORS MEET, MORE EVIDENCE WANTED, A large and representative meeting of dairy factory directors at Stratford on Saturday, after an exhaustive discussion of the proposed dairy produce pool, passed the- following resolution: ‘‘That whilst not necessarily opposed to the control of the export and marketing of dairy produce, this meeting of dairy factory directors urges the Government, before passing legislation providing for such control, to set up a Parliamentary committee to hear evidence for and against the proposed legislation.” The meeting was held in the Municipal Chambers, and was convened at the request of Mr. R. Masters, M.P., for the purpose of securing the views of the Taranaki dairy factory directors and to discuss the subject generally. The following factories were represented: Stratford, Midhirst, Tuna. Te Popo, Cardiff, Lowgarth, Waitara. Waiongoro, Pembroke, Royal Anns, Radnor, Ngaere, Makatu, and the Wanganui Fresh Food Company. The Tututawa factory was the only one in the district not represented, and those delegates present represented an annual output of about 7000 tons of butter and cheese, including the Fresh Food Company. Mr. Frank Ranford, chairman of the Stratford company, was voted to the chair, and asked Mr. Masters, who had a copy of the proposed Bill, to address the meeting. Mr. Masters said that in calling the meeting he would like to have given the dairy factory directors more time to get together. He was pleased to see so many present, because this indicated that there was a great deal of interest being taken in the matter. He had attended three meetings. As a result of the meeting in Wellington, it was decided to call a conference of delegates from all over New Zaland. He did not know whether the meeting could be called a representative one or not. Of the 290 persons present, some had proxies and some had not. Out of the 500 factories in New Zealand 145 were represented, and it was difficult to say whether this was representative of the industry in New Zealand. He wanted to know the views of the factory directors in his own district. The Wellington conference was very undecided as to the method by which the voting should be carried out, this alone being discussed for fully one and a-half hours. NEED FOR CHANGES. With regard to the principles of the proposed Bill, he had an open mind. It would be agreed that there was great need for something to be done in the matter of marketing and handling of produce. Even in New Zealand the handling of produce was not as satisfactory as it should be. He had seen butter and coal being handled on the same boat simultaneously, with the result that the butter-boxes became mixed with the coal. More accurate and prompt reports of the markets at Home were wanted. In this respect the High Commissioner’s office was out of date, and lamentably behind the times. Referring to the sales of produce at low prices in March last, he said that if the producers had had the reports they should have, the produce would not have been sold at these prices. Immense profits were made by the dealers out of the produce sold in March, of which he quoted instances. He thought a lot of good could be done by a combination with the Meat Pool. Turing to freight charges, Mr. Mas- ‘ , ters said that in 1914 freight charges on i butter were 2/6 per box, while to-day they were 5/-. This increase on butter alone | meant a quarter of a million pounds to g i the country. The increase on cheese was g from 9/16ths of a penny in 1914 tb 1 1 3/lOths of a penny, plus 10 per cent., to- | day, which meant half-a-mi Ilion pounds on cheese alone. He was convinced that the shipping position could be improved by a combination. The percentage rate of increase in freight charges from the Argentine since 1914 was 45 per cent., while in New Zealand it amounted to 81 per cent. The difference in the percentages of increase would mean £949,248 to New Zealand if she had the same rates as the Argentine. This would 8 show that there was ample scope for improvement. Australia had controlled her own shipping freights, with the result that the charges on wheat were now only half-a-crown per ton more than in pre-war days. The trouble was that they did not grapple with the freight question in New Zealand. **’ He knew a great deal of credit had been taken by the Meat Control Board for T recent improvement in the markets, but he A was not prepared to give all the credit tc ❖ that board. Lamb had certainly gone up a halfpenny per pound, but it had alsc ♦> gone up in the Argentine, and Australia as 4* well. X EVIDENCE WANTED.

Before anything was done to have the Act passed, continued Mr. Masters, evidence should be taken from all concerned in the industry as to its advisability. He happened to be one of the committee who took evidence regarding the Meat Control Bill, and he assured them that the matter was gone into exhaustively. The dairy industry was of the utmost importance to New Zealand, and this was one of the most important steps ever contemplated with regard to it. Every precaution should be I taken before they committed themselves I by legislation. Mr. Masters then went on to detail the proposals of the Bill. For administrative purposes, he said, it was proposed to make a maximum levy of one-eighth of a penny per lb on butter and one-sixteenth of a penny per lb on cheese. On an export of 140,661,760 lb of cheese, th’s would mean a levy of £36,635, and on 94,132,528 lb of | butter £49,027, or a total of £85,662. This I amount, he thought, was more than would | bo required, as under the Meat Control Act the levy was only £20,000. It was unlikely that the board of control would strike the maximum levy. The proposal was a most important matter to New Zealand, and, as a business man, he would not like to see them go in for it until the matter was thoroughly investigated. Mr. Ranford pointed out that it was not the intention to bring in the compulsory clause of the scheme. He would like to make his position clear with regard to the J recent conference at Wellington. He was not up against the scheme, but if it was not. made compulsory, he was afraid it would not be satisfactory. He felt that in all probability the scheme was going to bring about a great improvement, as it would give a much better control of shipping. When the delegates went to the con- | ference they did not know what they were 1 going for, and they had a perfect right I to have full particulars before they committed themselves. It was not good to swallow the whole scheme without first going thoroughly into it. { Mr. Geo. Sangster said that if the pro- , posed board had-control of nothing besides ; shipping and insurance it would justify its ■ existence. If a board were set up, they would have some idea of h*»w their produce

was being disposed of, which they did nQi know at present. They Were co-operative until their produce went aboard ship, but after that they did not know what happened to it. It was pointed out that if the Bill was passed it would take effect as in June, 1923, and the board qf control would then be automatically in existence as provided in the Bill. Mr. T. 11. Penn thought there should be another election of a board, or provision for such should be inserted in the Bill. The chairman asked that if the taking of evidence by a Parliamentary committee on the advisability of the Bill, as suggested, might not delay the coming into operation of the Bill. Mr. Masters said it need not delay legislation, as Mr. Massey had said that the Bill could not come down inside a month from Wednesday last. The chairman said that no section of the industry should be disfranchised on account of the hurry with which things were being pushed on. Mr. P. Thomson said the Wellington conference was not a representative one. If a committee were set up to take evidence, all factories should be given the opportunity of giving evidence. If they did not come forward they could not complain. Mr. F. W. Court, representing the Wanganui Fresh Food Company, said his principals had asked him to make strong representations to have every precaution taken before anything was done in the matter of control. His company or anyone else had not had sufficient notice of the Wellington conference. It was very evident that the conference was too hurried, and that it was not in a position to give the delegates the information they needed and were entitled to. A levy of £BO,OOO or £90,000 was asked for by the board for the purpose of pitting their wits against those of the Tooley Street people, who had been in the business for a hundred years, and knew all about it. Everyone knew that the farmers were already overburdened without a levy on their i produce of the proposed amount. If a rej ferendum were taken on the advisability [ of a pool, it would be turned down by a great majority. Cries of “No!” QUESTION OF FINANCE. The matter of finance had not been gone into, continued Mr. Court. Tooley Street would not be prepared to finance on the same terms under a pool scheme. If the board had to finance they would be faced with a big task, and final payments to suppliers would be greatly delayed.. The chairman said the levy mentioned was the maximum, and he did hot think it would be necessary to take ' the full amount. In any case he thought the amount of the levy would be saved in shipping, insurance and handling charges. Tooley Street was not up against the scheme in any way, but would work with the board. He was convinced that they were working in the right direction and that neither Tooley Street nor the levy need be feared. Mr. W. Power brought up the question, of whether the levy would cover the expense? of the sub-board in London, or whether this would be a separate charge. He also wished to know whether the pool scheme included whey butter and other lines of dairy produce, and who would pay the trade co/nmissions. He also thought the National Dairy Association had a ship ping contract for a given period. Would this terminated ? Mr. Masters said the levy would pay all administrative expenses. The trade commission would be paid by the board, and the individual factories would not take any responsibility. As regarded the inclusion of products besides butter and cheese, Mr. Masters said the working of the . clause setting out dairy produce as butter | and cheese was wide enough to his mind to | include whey butter and skim-milk cheese. He thought that casein was not included in the definition as set out in the A.;t. Mr. P. Thomson then moved: “That whilst not necessarily opposed to the control of the export and marketing of dairy \ produce, this meeting of dairy factory direc tors urges the Government, before passing legislation providing for such control, to set up a Parliamentary committee to hear evidence for and against the proposed legisla tion.” Mr. Ranford said he did not know if the . meeting would be wise to pass a resolution of any kind until the matter was placed before the boards of directors. Mr. Masters said he thought the meeting *i was a very representative one and com- ' petent to pass a resolution. After further discussion-the motion was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. At the conclusion Mr. Masters was accorded, by acclamation, a vote of thanks • for the trouble he had taken in calling the ■ i meeting and placing matters before it, several delegates speaking appreciatively of the service he had rendered. ' ' The chairman was also accorded a vote 5 of thanks.