THE DAIRY POOL.
CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSALS. A CORRESPONDENT’S VIEWS. AA’rites “Cautious”: I Sir—On every side one hears farmers asking for information as to the aims and ideals of the proposed Dairy Pool, but it seems almost impossible to get any definite information. The fact that practically the same individuals who recently failed to arrange the compulsory control of New Zealand dairy produce are again at the back of the present movement, which was sprung on the farmers with but little if any notice, the election of the same men to the proposed Board, and the unbusinesslike haste with which the whole business has been handled, seems to have aroused a storm of resentment and even suspicion.
The outstanding feature of the proposed Bill is the right of levying £85,090 from the farmers’ already too heavily discounted monthly cheques, and the farmer naturally resents a raid of such magnitude on his pockets, especially as he was practically not consulted in the matter, and is unable to fathom the quid pro quo side of the question. If this high sum is required by the promoters to attempt to dictate to the British merchants as to the way they shall conduct their business, farmers will be wise to demand that no definite move shall be made, or allow a shilling of their money to be spent until not only the present working, but the possible future ramifications of th? scheme shall have been subject to the most searching inquiry and consideration.
Farmers must remember that not only the British merchant but the consumer is by nature conservative and [a born freetrader, and the very suggestion of anything that savors of trust methods or compulsory fixing of prices, will raise such a storm of opposition in England that will do more damage to Now Zealand’s produce in a month than any suggested pool can remedy in years to comp. If the promoters consider it possible to control the London markets, or dictate prices, they merely show that they have failed to realize the magnitude of their idea, and have but a poor conception of it either from a practical or financial aspect. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION. The promoters claim that they intend if successful to use the same channels of distribution as heretofore, viz., Tooley Street. Surely there is a Gilbertian touch about this. Do,'these sanguine promoters imagine for a. moment that these merchants are prepared to hand over their business orginisations and distributing channels to be used by a Board of comparative ametuers, businesses built up by the energy and commercial ability of several generations, business whose verr’ let'tter heads are the hallmark of all that stands for commercial honor /throughout the world? The idea is farcical, but just for a moment, for reasoning’s sake, suppose that such a thing were possible, does not the question immediately occur to an.y practical man: AATiere is the necessity for this extra Take off of £85,000 from the farmers? The more likely result of an attempt to interfere with the running of world’s markets will be that those who now handle our produce will resent having their business experimented with, and will devote their energies and capital to developing other sources of supply. Argentine and South Africa offer enormous possibilities. Land can be bought by. the spuare mile for what is paid for
an acre here, whilst labour is cheaper. Then Siberia in a. few years will offer the same opportunities, and. perhaps too late, the farmers will realise that they have lent themselves and their industry to an experiment, the benefits of which are to a great extent problematical. The financial aspect of this proposal seems to be considered of little moment, or not at all, but at no hour in New Zealand’s existence has this been such a vital question. At pre'sent farmers receive liberal advances, up to 80 per cent, on their shipments, through the banks. The fact that the documents are endorsed by British merchants has much to do with this. Should this endorsement not to be forthcoming it is safe to prophesy that if left to the tender mercies of the more conservative banks these advances would not reach more than 50 per cent, of the nominal value of your produce, and farmers would find that the troubles of being undercapitalised such as the Co-op. Dairy Comi panies are suffering from would be there I only in a much greater degree. AVhen I the late war commenced the Imperial I Government at first suggested that they ; would undertake the distribution and control of food. Fortunately they decided to leave it in the hands of practically the very men (viz., the Tooley Street merchants) who handle your produce to-day. The result was that the manner in which this duty was carried out was one of the outstanding features of the great organisation that finally won the war. This incident alone should be sufficient to make farmers hesitate to rush into an experiment of this kind. A FAIR TRIAL. Recognising that the promoters are actuated by the wish to benefit the dairy industry (and incidentally themselves),a I suggestion occurs to one to give them an ! opportunity to prove their scheme and al - so their absolute bona fides. Some years ago a number of practical business men and farmers, foreseeing the necessity of cool stores in Taranaki, suggested a company being formed tor this purpose, and it is well known that either the farmers had not the money, or had not acquired the get rich quick ideas of the present day, so did not respond very readily to the suggestion. The business people of New Plymouth, however, look the matter up, and, as is well known, i for years ran the works most profitably, a fitting reward for their enterprise. AA 7 hen its success was assured, the farmers decided to either build in opposition or purchase the concern so»as to secure the whole of the profits. This was eventually done. Now let it be a suggestion to the promoters of the present pool, that they should form a similar , company, the present members of the J Board each taking up a block of shares. Thby say the total proposed levy of I £85,000 would not be required, so they could prove this by putting up £50,-000 for a •start. Then let their supporters give their methods a fair trial, leaving those opposed to it to ship or consign i under the present conditions. Should j the company be a success, the promoters I would receive all the suggested profits ; and advantages, and if it were a failure 1 they could console themselves with the thought ahat the money lost had come out of their own pocket, and they would have no regrets at having assumed the enormous responsibility as they now propose doing of experimenting with New Zealand’s produce worth £21,000,000, without being certain that they have sufficient, commercial ability to handle such a proposition. I The writer wishes it understood tha| the above lines are not written in any antagonistic spirit towards either the pool or its promoters, but solely with the idea of drawing the searching X-rays, of careful consideration on to a subject that involves such vital interests.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19221004.2.65
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1922, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,208THE DAIRY POOL. Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1922, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.