DAIRY CONTROL ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1925, Page 3

DAIRY CONTROL ACT

OPINIONS OF COUNSEL. STARTLING INVASION OF PRINCIPLES OF LAW, WELLINGTON. February 21). Tile legal opinion of Sir John .Findlay. K.C.. and Mr Myers, K.C., has been obtained by the ‘‘New Zealand 'rimes’’ on the proposals of the Dairy ■Control Board regarding innlrol <1 marketing ot dairy produce. Counsel are of opinion that the hoard could obtain effective control of manufactured daily produce if the Government exercises the powers under section 12 of the Act which .se.tion enables the Government to prohibit tho export of dairy produce except ur.dcr license. “It will be seen, therefore, that a serious responsibility lies nnon the Govonienmicn, more especially if it be the tact, a.s we were given to umlerstaiulthat the passing of the Act and the allirnuitivc vote of the producers to bring it into operation were brought about largclv bv the representation tha.t although the drastic power of compulsorily dealing wall dairy produce, possibly contrary to tile wishes i f itowners was conferred upon the board by the Ait the power was one that would never be exorcised.” Referring to the absolute control which may be exercised by the board regarding marketing, counsel say that in tiso event of loss the owner of produce or the person who made advances against the produce would have very great difficulty in obtaining redress from the board, anil the remedy at law, if it existed might be valueless. Referring to the relative advantages and disadvantages of boards ol control of all produce counsel point out that no provision is made by the Act for repayment of advances made bv merchants or banks prior to the board’s assumption of control. The question arises Imw is the owner of produce to be financed. (Yniu.-cl say Ibaf even it ~ Imuk. ‘etc. , could lie induced to lend :-■() or 93 pc* rout,, as at present, is

t. ms nt. present, is it, to lie Mi' : ii'is il Unit such advance would 111' made without the right of reclamation in the event of the sale proeeeils being insidiieient to repay the amount of advance ! J

Counsel also comment tluit too Act is silent regarding lmw payments to producers by the hoard are to he adjusted, "hut in considering a statute which involves such an alarming and revolutionary invasion ol the rights ol private property it is impossible where the Act is silent on a particular point to express any concluded opinion as to what the legislation means.” The point is of such importance that it may have t„ he referred to the Court, even to the Privy Council.

Counsel further says that the hoard’s power of disposing its principals rr„o,ls, without reference to the O'mcipnl. even in defiance of the prmcipa s wishes, is a startling invasion upon Hie fundamental principles ol our lay.. Not 011 Iv that, but plainly the financial system of dealing with dairy produce at present is struck at to the very root. It seems an entire misuse ol words to apply tin- term co-onerat 1011 to a scliem of property belonging to a Lord paity. ' DUNEIMN. Fell. 20. -u a meeting of daily producers and manufacturers, called bv the Gtugo Dai i v Producers’ and Maniifac enrol s Association, the question whether be Dairv Control Board should l;a\e cimpletc or partial control ol the mdus- ■ was fully discussed. The -"“'ensus of opinion was that there should not be complete control. mr _