INTERNAL MARKETING

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20502, 19 May 1938, Page 11

INTERNAL MARKETING

PRODUCER CONTROL PRESENT SYSTEM CRITICISED (Special Reporter) AUCKLAND, Wednesday. There was sometimes a marked divergence of opinion expressed at the Auckland provincial conference of the Farmers’ Union to-day when a remit protesting against the internal marketing scheme under Government contro’, as being unwarranted interference with trade, was under discussion. Mr V. Simms, Otorohangi. who introduced the remit, stated that the reforms necessary should he effected by the industry itself under necessary legislative authority given to the elected representatives of the Industries concerned. The scheme should be producer controlled and not State controlled. Prior to the internal marketing scheme, there was no organisation whatsoever, with the result that there was wholesale price-cutting, said Mr H. K. Hatrick. The old order of things had been chaotic, with the whole business in the hands of a few Arms. Government Control “The Government has taken control without giving it to the farmers,” commented Mr A. E. Robinson. “The Government should have given farmers the benefit of the necessary legislation to do the job themselves, which would have been better and safer in the long run.” The amendment merely represented an addition to the remit, as it merely set out how producer control could be brought about, stated Mr R. A. Candy. Under the present internal marketing regulations. It was necessary for dairy companies to refund to the Marketing Department .62d. per lb. of butter, and taking London parity into consideration, producers were heavy financial losers. In the past dairy companies had earned considerable profit from the local marketing of butter, a profit that was now denied them- The present scheme was definitely of no advantage to producers. A further amendment was moved by Mr Hatrick, this being to the effect that the conference, while expressing appreciation of the Government's efforts to introduce orderly marketing, should ask the Government to hand over the control of the scheme to the primary producers. Other delegates, in expressing opposition to both the resolution and the amendment, stated that there should be a greater readiness among farmers to co-operate with the present order of things. It would be better to cooperate for the common good than to endeavour to eliminate present systems.

“The powers invested in the Primary Products Marketing Department are altogether too great,” said Mr W. Draper (Drury) In supporting the resolution. “The department,” continued Mr Draper, “has the power to contr I every commodity produced in this untry, and it is therefore impera/\e that we should have producer control.”

Mr Simms’ resolution was finally carried