WELLINGTON NOTES

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1923, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES

F.XTRAOR DINARA' POWERS. DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL. (Special to •‘Guardian”.l The most striking eontriliiiiion to the controversy over the Dairy produce Export Control Dill that has yet appeared in print was featured in the ‘Evening Post” last night. Its phraseology suggests a legal mind behind it but its points are made easily intelligible to the layman. “Clause .‘3 o( the Bill,” the writer states, ‘‘proposes to establish a Control Board i-on- - Fling of eleven members, of whom two are to he appointed by the Government. and nine to he elected by the producers, the lnnnner of the election being left to regulations to be made by the Government later on. A twelfth member of the board may be added as representing persons, for the time being engaged in business as Upmufaetuiers of dairy produce, or as sellers of .stub produce out of New Zealand. Clause 12 empowers that hoard as its own sweet will at any time to assume control, absolute or limited, according to Ms unlettered discretion, of all or any of the Ijiittet and cheese produced in New Zeahtsd, and intended for export. The hoard may, if it chooses, exercise discrimination b.v assuming absolute control of Lite dairy produce belonging to one or more owners, leaving all other owners to deal with llieir produce a,s they think lit, in the ordinary course of business.” So much for the discrimination given to the Board. HELPLESS OWNERS.

Then the writer explains what may happen to the owner who in all good faith has purchased dairy produce in the oidinury course of business. “Any produce uf which the Board assumes absolute coni ini,” he says, “shall he sold and disposed of only by the hoard or by direction of the board, at such times, and in such manner and mi such terms as the Board in its discretion determines.” Thai is to say. the

owner of the produce of which the hoard lias assumed such eontrul is no longer ; ermiited to dispose of his property and lias no voice whatever in the mantier or terms of its disposal or the price at which it is to he sold. He may have purchased the produce from producer.-.' manulactiii ing companies, yet, at any rale if the purchase is made after August ill. 192-1. the right of disposal of his goods is taken away from him and given hack, in effect, to the very producers who have sold the produce to him and have absolutely disposed of tlieii isterest in it ; because the hoard is composed almost entirely of representatives of the producers. And this liv no means ends the unfortunate owner’s troubles NO APPEAL.

The Bill provides that the. Board in its corporate capacity shall he doomed to lie the agent of tile owner of all produce of which the Board has assumed eontiol and that the mutual rights, obligations and liabilities of the Board and the several owners shall accordingly lie determined in accordance with the law governing the relations between 1 rimipals and agents. But even this provision is qualified. '‘Save.’’ its concluding sentence runs, "thai nothing herein shall he construed to limit the power of the Board to exercise with-

out the authority of the owner of any (laity produce, anil power with respect to such dairy produce that may expressly or by implication he conferred on the boat'd by or by virtue of this Act.” Worse even than all this, according to the writer ill the “Post”, is the provision hv which a single owner might he colli] died to pay mil only the cost of disposing of Ids own pioluro. lu'.H also a large inert or even the wimli- of i lie cost of carrying on the spacious operations of the Board. Here i:e quotes Clause 15 of ihe Bill, which seems to hear out to toe full Ins contention. DANGERS <>E COMPULSION. The ‘'Post” itself alter recalling the disastrous results of Queensland's attempt at dairy pooling speculates upon the probable outcome of a similar experiment here. “'I here w ill be egg pools, fruit pools, honey pools, all," it says, “in the direction of keeping ’up prices and making tin* cost nl liiing higher. And there is another aspect ol the pooling of dairy prodtno that must not he regarded as unworthy of con-

sideration-possible retaliation on the part of tnose who will distribute the produce in the overseas markets. The Government is being asked in this Dairy Produce Control Bill to endorse a huge butter and cheese combination. I n’cs: such a combine i-an link up with English. Welsh, Irish. Australian. Canadian Danish, and Argentine dairy producing interests, it "ill ever be exposed 1° the risks of severe, possibly ruinous competition from foreign countries, in which, for the sake of its own food supplies, Great Britain will he compelled to acquiesce. This, of course, is the great peril the promoters of the New Zealand dairy pool are inviting, ami the one. it would seem, they are ignoring. It is significant that the Prime Minister is much less keen than h. < - colleague, the Minister n! Agriculture I-, about the compulsory ciause-' of the Bill and it still is possible his sagacity \et mac bring about some liiodi'ieni ic of the controversial i lauses of the Bill-