DAIRY PRODUCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1922, Page 5

DAIRY PRODUCE.

THE POOL PROPOSALS. MANGOREI COMPANY’S ATTITUDE. THE SCHEME FAVORED. By 30 votes to 22, the shareholders of the Mangorei Co-operative Dairy Company decided, last night, in favor of the proposed pool for the control of the handling, marketing, and shipping of dairy produce. The meeting was called in order to give the shareholders an opportunity of diucussing the project, the draft Bill being outlined and explained by Mr. R. Masters, M.P., while Mr. A. Morton, a director of the company, strongly advocated the scheme.

Mr. J. R. Rowlands, chairman of directors, presided. He confined his opening remarks to a review of the work of the various committees which had been set up to go into the whole question, finally coming to the conference which had been held in Wellington on September 14, and which had set up a special committee to draft the Bill now under discussion. The resolu tion asking the Government to take action in having the Dairy Control Bill passed had been carried by 150 votes to 30.

I Mr. Rowlands said that there were certain men present at the meeting who were in opposition to the scheme, and he thought he might say that the opposition had not got a very fair hearing. Regarding his own attitude at the meeting, he said he had gone there as directed by the board of directors, and, as far as he knew, he had a free hand. He had voted against the resolution, because he had considered that the full details of the measure were not before the meeting, and he did not . want to put his head into a noose. He I then called on Mr. Masters, who, he said, I was in close touch with the Bill.

Mr. Masters, who was greeted with api plause, spoke generally on the lines of his i address on the subject at Stratford (reported in the Daily News). He thought th?y i must all admit that the conference at Wei- : lington had not been as representative as it might have been, inasmuch as’ a good many of the dairy factories could not get their representatives there in time. Mr. Masters said he had an open mind on the subject, but it would be agreed that thero [ was a necessity for some change in the matter of marketing and handling their produce. I THE FREIGHT QUESTION. Regarding the freight question, he said that if the Control Bill, apart from anything in the way of handling their produce at this end, could improve and lessen the rates of freight that were in operation at the present time, that would justify any board being set up. He thought a great deal could be done in this connection by the establishment of the board. With regard to-marketing conditions at the other end, Mr. Masters quoted from the report of Mr. Vavasour, of the Marlborough Farmers’ Union, with reference to the manner in which New Zealand meat was handled in London, the report showing that the conditions with respect to their butter and cheese were just as bad. “I say that if a tenth part of that is true,” he continued, “it calls for very serious consideration. If it is so, how can you possibly reap the full products of the labor you put into your farms?” (Applause.) Mr. Masters then proceeded to read anti explain the various clauses of the Bill. The Prime Minister had expressed the wish that the Government should have two nominees on the board—one from each island, and the board would, therefore, probably consist of 11 members instead of nine as was now proposed. Regarding the regulation fixing the levies for administration, etc., he said it did not necessarily follow that the full levy was going to be made, but the board had power to do so should it desire.

Answering a question, Mr. Masters said that a Parliamentary committee had not yet been set up, but personally he was in favor of one being appointed, as there were some companies in favor, some lukewarm, and some bitterly opposed to the scheme, and he thought it should be thoroughly discussed. Mr. R. W. D. Robertson asked, if the board was to arrange for grading the produce, would the grading branch of the Agricultural Department be taken over. In reply, Mr. Masters said he did not think the agricultural and grading department would be scrapped. Mr. J. R. Rowlands commented on clause 13, calling it a “cow tax.” If the maxi mum levy were made, it would mean £4OO to the Mangorei company. Mr. R. Burrows drew attention to the finance part of the Bill. It was all right to control the dairy produce, but where was the finance coming from ? Mr. Rowlands: Provision is made in the Bill for the payment of the council and the Control Board, but nothing for the “cocky.” A Voice: When control is formed, do they propose to market through Tooley Street ? Mr. Rowlands: They don’t say so. The Bill says the board has power to appoint a London agency, which will consist of such a number of persons as the board thinks fit. With reference to the expenses mentioned in the Bill, he understood that they were the same expenses as were now incurred in selling through Tooley Street. A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE. Mr. Morton was then called on to speak, and he commenced his remarks by conir plaining of the way in which the meeting had been called. He was a director of the company, and had never been consulted in calling the meeting. The Companies Act, under which they were registered, provided that no extraordinary meeting could be called without a resolution to that effect by the directors; but he had known nothing of the meeting until he got his notice through the post one day last week. Mr. Morton then proceeded to recall the agitation which had been going on for years for some action with regard to th? handling and marketing of their produce. He thought the present scheme was in the best interests of all the producers, but, if it was to be a success, they must have all the output, so that no shipment from any of their factories would get on the London i market and force down the prices. The question of holding monthly auctions had been discussed, but, subsequently, eve a those in favor had turned round against that idea and the suggestion had been entirely dropped. The committee which had been makinig investigations had then turned its attention to a proposal similar to the Meat Control Act.

“I think you as producers know,” Mr Morton continued, “that for years previous to the Government commandeer taking place, and for the two years which have since passed by, we have not had a fair deal with regard to our products from the other end. (Hear, hear.) In the pro-, posed scheme there is no suggestion dafyiag T?elty Thm U tor,

some control and they are to be asked to work in conjunction with the board set up in London by the producers. All that ws are asking are conditions that will enable us to receive prices similar to what the Danes are receiving. We recognise the law of supply and demand must always operate. The Danes watch the market very carefully, and no doubt have opinions as to the state of the market and fix their prices accordingly. We ask for no better system than the Danes have had for very many years. W r e have never suggested, in connection with the control of dairy produce, that the Government should be in any way connected with it, except that we have asked for legislation establishing the control board. Even if the Government has one or two representatives on the board, it will still be in the hands of the producers.” Continuing, Mr. Morton read some cablegrams from London showing how New Zealand butter had been “beared” on the market, while Sir Thomas Clements had stated that if there had been some system of control New Zealand butter would never have fallen to the low price it did last December. What were their methods of marketing their produce at Home? They were the same as when they started the factory 20 years ago. They had scrapped machinery to replace it with better, built new factories, and improved in every way; but they had never done anything to improve the marketing conditions. After their produce was shipped they had no control over it, and that was where their weakness had been. Mr. Ellison had said that the Danes fix their price every week and get it. New Zealand butter was considered every bit as good as the Danish, but why the difference in price? Because of their system of marketing. ADVERTISING. “One of the striking points in connection with the proposed dairy pool,” Mr, Morton went on, “is that they will uae part of the fund—a very considerable amount—in advertising in Great Britain your dairy produce—your butter and your cheese. (Applause.) We have been told for years past that if we want to get full value on the British market we must advertise and keep it constantly before the public that our dairy produce is the best. That is one of the cardinal points of the dairy control, that there should be systematic advertising in England. “Looking through the Meat Control Act,” Mr. Morton added, “it was thought there was a weakness in that there was no intermediary between the board and the pro ducer, and, therefore, in the dairy Bill ’ the council of 30 had been provided for, to whom the board would report. The council in turn will report back to the producers.” In conclusion, Mr. Morton said he believed that the Bill was in the interests of the whole of the industry, and he asked the meeting to give it their support. (Applause.) Replying to a question, Mr. Morton said they need have not the slightest fear with regard to finance. Surely, if the board went to Tooley Street with a shipment of butter they would be able to obtain the usual advances on it. Mr. Rowlands, after giving his explanation as to the calling of the meeting, said he considered that the British public were against control, while he did not think they would be able to control the price. He also thought the London firms had treated them well. Mr. T. Hawkins: How do you account for the fact that Denmark got 50/- per cwt. more than we did, even though, as you say, we were well treated? Mr. Rowlands: I don’t know about that. AN EXPERT'S ADVICE. Mr. R. W. D. Robertson said he agreed that opportunity should be given to hear all sides of the question. Speaking as a supplier, on the face of it the Bill looked a very dangerous thing, because it would place all their produce in the hands of nine men. They might or might not be competent; he doubted whether they could obtain nine men in New Zealand able to deal effectively with all their produce. He thought that some system of control was necessary, but he considered it should start at this end by regulating the shipments to the London market, so as to avoid a glut and then a scarcity. Mr. Robertson outlined a scheme which had been suggested at the time when the Imperial Government was anxious to dis■pose of its stocks of butter. It had been proposed to set up a committee like the 8.A.W.R.A., which would have taken over the whole of the accumulated butter, about 35,000 tons, and if that committee had been set up there would have been no butter to liquidate last year. The scheme had been opposed by the National Dairy Association, of which Mr. Morton was president, and if that opposition had not been shown there would have been no slump last year. In conclusion, Mr. Robertson said that, before the Act was passed, it would be a good thing if the Government sent a delegation to London to inquire into the handling and marketing conditions there and then came back and reported. The following resolution was then moved by Mr. Morton: “That this meeting of shareholders of the Mangorei Dairy Company expresses approval of the proposed Dairy Control Bill.” Mr. T. Hawkins seconded. Mr. H. W. Baxter moved as an amendment: “That this meeting, while accepting the general principle of centralised control of the export and marketing of dairy produce, considers the scheme now being promoted to be seriously faulty in several important details, notably in the omission of any provision for financing advance payments to the producers, and is therefo.a unacceptable.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. A H. Taylor, but it was lost on the voices. The motion was then carried. A hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Masters was then carried by acclamation.