DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 October 1922, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

OPPOSITION FROM DUNEDIN, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Dunedin, October 19. The Chamber of Commerce has written to Mr. W. Noeworthy, taking strong exception to the compulsory clauses of the Dairy Produce Control Bill and stating that members are opposed to the wide power given to the Government as to the issue of regulations under section I'B. BELL BLOCK OBJECTS. The directors of the Bell Block Dairy Company have passed a resolution opposing the Dairy Produce Control Bill and have communicated with Messrs. S. G. Smith and R. Masters, M.P's., asking them to oppose its passage through the House. PROTEST FROM STRATFORD. The directors of the Stratford Dairy Company have entered an emphatic protest with Mr. R. Masters, M.P., against the proposed Dairy Produce Export Control Bill as at present before Parliament. MR. CONNETT -REPLIES. Mr. John Connett writes to the Editor:— Sir—ln Wednesday's Daily News Mr. H. A. Hunt, of Stratford, writes on the above subject making reference also to this years’ balance sheet of the Taranaki Farmers Meat Company. It would be unbecoming of me to discuss the latter at this time, seeing that the annual meeting has not yet been held, excepting perhaps to say tlijit there are probably three sections of public opinion on this matter, comprised firstly of those who have some knowledge of the facts of the position, and are sympathetic; secondly, those who have no such knowledge, but are preserving an open mind until the facts are forthcoming: and, lastly, a section, including your correspondent, who have jumped to conclusions and already passed judgment. To such, of course, attending the annual meeting would be a waste of time.

In reference to the Dairy Produce Control Bill your correspondent is rather wide of the mark when he says the Council is desirous of taking over the whole of the dairy produce and marketing it themselves. As a matter of fact, this is the last thing they wish to do. Thev believe that improvements can be effected, and are of opinion that the Home firms will assist in bringing this about, but Control is required to make the scheme satisfactory. Neither is the Council desirous of having powers to make excessive levies. A clear indication of this has been given by resolution that such should not exceed oneeighth of a. penny per lb. butter and one-sixtheenth of a penny per lb cheese. The actual amount is expected to be about one-fourth of this amount. Mr. Hunt suggests that all snpnliers should be called together to consider this matter, as the directors have no right to commit their companies to the proposal. Possibly some have opposed it, so it cuts both ways. We read in the Press just recently of a suppliers’ meeting supporting the Control Board by a good majority, and a few days later the directors of the same company passed a resolution opposing it. How would an umpire count that? Tt is a significant fact that, whilst the great majority of the leaders of the dairy industry are supporting the proposal with the idea of bringing about a better condition of affairs, making savings where such can be effected getting better prices* for better quality, making Now Zealand produce better known to the consumer, supplying regular shipments to maintain a more even nr ice, and thereby ensuring the best return possible to the producer, there are others who have no constructive criticism to offer, but are suspicious of every move that is made, ready to read into the proposal, all sorts of ridiculous suggestions, prompted by those in opposition. and desirous of its defeat. One expects some opposition, but certainly not from our own people.