THE DAIRY POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1922, Page 5

THE DAIRY POOL.

PROTESTS AGAINST HASTE. MORE TIME REQUIRED. ATTITUDE OF MR. S. G. SMITH. Mr. S. G. Smith, who is seeking reelection as the Li'beral-Labor candidate in the Taranaki electorate, opened his election campaign at the Omata Hall last night. Despite bad weather about twenty electors attended, and the speaker was accorded an attentive hearing, particularly during that portion of the address dealing with the proposed dairy pool. Mr. J. A. Kurth presided. Mt. Smith, in opening, defined his position with .regard to existing parties in the House. It was absurd for anyone to suggest that the Government could be dominated by extreme Labor, he said. He had, on occasions, voted for motions proposed by Labor. They were consistent with his own considered opinion, anl because he absolutely refused to sink his individuality. Referring to the dairy pool, Mr. Smith said the Minister of Agriculture had stated in the House that the Bill was a Government policy Bill, and the Government would take full responsibility for it. The attitude adopted by Mr. Masters and himself had been in the interests of the dairy industry. There were eleven dairy factories in the Taranaki electorate, and of these no less than nine had forwarded protests to their member. The other two, he understood, had also protested against the Bill, 'but not through himself. These factories representel 727 suppliers, producing 912 tons of butter and 1900 tons of cheese, and consequently he had opposed the Bill Explaining his attitude, Mr. Smith presented four main reasons:— REASONS FOR DELAY. 1. There was need for a thorough investigation into the present methods of marketing, high freights, and other costs, with a view of arriving at what would be the best methods to adopt to effect an improvement on the arrangements obtaining. 2. Any alterations to present marketing conditions should not be brought about until such time as all producers had had full opportunity of considering same. 3. It was clear that all -producers had not had full opportunity to consider the Bill. 4. The effect of the proposals contained in the Bill was of such tremendous importance, not only to the producers, but to the whole Dominion, that it would have been unwise to pass the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill until the majority of producers, after mature consideration, desired it. His attitude, therefore, was to urge that the Bill be not proceeded with at present. There had been every evidence that it was intended that the Bill should 'be pushed through thia session, and he had been the first to make the suggestion that a committee be formel to reconsider the Bill. This had been done and evidence had been taken. He had taken 83 factories with 6173 suppliers, turning out 6688 tons of butte v and 26,579 tons of cheese, and argued that these suppliers never had the op portunity of discussing the Bill. They knew that it was to be along the lines of the Meat Pool Bill, but they had not been consulted, and, according to

, reports, the committee did not read, ' much less explain, the Bill at the re- . cent meeting held in New Plymouth. [ EXPORTS TO BRITAIN. The Dominion, in 1913, only supplied 1 1-lGth of the United Kingdom’s re--1 quirements of butter. In 1920 and 1921 they exported approximately one-fifth, yet the promoters of the scheme talked about controlling the market. The cheese position was little better. New Zealand produced 42,254 tons of butter last year, 86.7 per cent, of which came from the North Island and 13.3 per cent. ' from the South. For cheese the total was 60,300 tons, divided in the proportion of 75.4 per cent, from the North and 24.4 per cent, from the South. It had been stated that the Bill would eliminate speculators and manipulators. If these people really existed it should clearly have been the duty of the men promoting the pool to have eupprcssel them without the necessity of going to such drastic and expensive measures. The Bill provided that all shipping questions would be handled through the meat pool. Moreover, it had been urged that if a pool was set up the Home merchants would welcome it, but in his opinion, the merchants would turn more to foreign produce, and this would have on adverse effect upon the prices foNew Zealand produce. The Danes owed their success to the fact that for the past fifteen years they had been supplying the English market all the year round, while their system of marketing was voluntary. The Minister of Agriculture had told the House that there were 350 co-oper-ative factories and 397 proprietary concerns in New Zealand. Of these 158 voted in favor of the pool, 123 against it, and 116 did not vote. Correct figures showed there were 525 dairy factories in New Zealand, and ae only 158 had 'been in favor of the proposal, he contended his action in opposing the Bill had been justified. FEATURES OF THE BILL. Mr. Smith then gave a very comprehensive summary of the Bill. In the original proposal the Government had not asked for finance, yet they inserted a clause whereby they would retain two seats on the board. After the producers had elected their representatives, the Governor-General had the right to veto any nomination. If the Minister for Agriculture objected to any man, he could get him cut out. There were a number of proprietary concerns operating throughout the Dominion who were not provided for, but this had been amended so that the Governor-General could ( recommenl one representative to watch , their interests and those of selling < companies. One peculiar clause said < that three mempers must resign from 1 the board every three years, and the 1 date of their resignations had been r fixed without any stated date for their ]

term to commence. It was the most ill-considered Bill ever introduced into ~he House. The London agency of the board could be of any number, one of whom would be appointed by the Gov-ernor-General. Another clause stipulated that dairy produce was not to be exported save through the boaxd. Mr. M. Myers, K.C., one of the most capable lawyers in New Zealand, had said, in a considered opinion, that the Government

could not interfere with any measure proposed by the board, yet the board could sell to whom it liked and no objection could be raised. At £1 a ton. on 'butter and 10s on cheese the proposed levy had looked to be too big, but in the Bill the levy was set down at l-8d per lb on butter . and l-16d on cheese, which actually worked out at a higher rate. The board would have full control of storage freights, shipping, etc., and producers would not receive their money until all costs so incurred had been met. There wa.R a feeling of want of confidence abroad to-day. They had been told that the compulsion clause would probably not be enforced, but this was doubtful. Nobody had come forward to champion the cause of the meat pool, and reductions on freights and freezing attributed to this pool had also been effected in the Argentine and elsewhere. The claims made by supporters of the meat pool were not entirely correct. The reduction was due to the* action of English merchants and natural causes, and only incidentally to the .pool. At the close of the meeting, no questions having been asked, Mr. J. Rolleston proposed and Mr. G. H. Hanover seconded a vote of thanks to Mr. Smith for his address and continued confidence in him. This was carried unanimously.