DAIRY PRODUCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1922, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE.

THE CONTROL BILL. Mr. J. S. Connett writes: — May I again trespass on your space in reference to this very important matter. Mr. Maxwell, in Thursday’s Daily News, savs: “I utterly fail to understand Mr. Connett; (2) he does not in the least understand the measure he is assisting to promote, and-cannot read English, or he is wilfully attempting to hide the truth; (3) his statements as to the export levy and council are absolutely contrary to fact.” As to No. 1, i can quite believe that all promoters of the Bill are misunderstood by those in opposition, wilfully by some no doubt. Regarding No. 2, I deny that there is any attempt on my part to hide thfc truth ;* the misunderstanding and • misinterpretation of the Bill is, in my I opinion, on Mr. Maxwell’s side and those I supporting him. Regarding No. 3, it was necessary to read with the Bill the proposed regulations governing levy and council to give the meeting some idea of what was in the minds of the promoters. At the outset it was decided that the Dairy Produce Control Bill should be drafted on the lines of the Meat Control Bill. In Iboth cases the amount of levy, election of producers’ representatives and election of board is provided for bv regulations approved by Parliament.’ Similarly, for representation purposes the Dominion is divided into districts, which are entitled to elect representatives annually according to production. Under the proposed Bill the total number will he 30, to be called a council, of which Taranaki’s quota will be 5, elected by the dairy companies in the area. The council will elect the board also as far as possible on a district basis. The objects of the Bill, in simple language, are:— To bring about a better understanding between the controllers of meat and dairy produce; (a) in respect to the. fair apportionment of the available shipping space: (b) to join together for the purpose of negotiating with shipping companies for a gradual reduction in freight charges, frequent and regular arrival of shipments, and improve communication with other ports than London in order to facilitate unloading; (c) in all cases of mutual benefit to assist each other.

(2) To establish an accredited London board, which will: (a) Confer with distributing firms with a view to improving marketing conditions throughout Great Britain: (lb) investigate and report on the requirements of the different centres of population; (c) carry out

•. comprehensive system of advertising; (d) keep producers posted with all information likely to be of advantage; (p) develop new' markets where 'possible. (3) To control dairy produce if necestvy: (a) For the purpose of arrangshipping contracts: (b) to regulate

supplies to weak holding firms: (c) to market only if unable to obtain the first results otherwise.

This interpretation. I think, represents fairly accurately the opinions of the committee, and it is difficult to see what exception can be taken to it by pny producer. Agents possibly in fear ■ur losing their business, will no doubt find fault with the scheme and nsp what i-fl'ienee they have to block 't. but that ■is only to be expected. The Parliamentary Committee now sitting is affording every opportunity for materif>l evidence to be given and any useful enggestions for improvement or safeguard will no doubt he given effect to.