DAIRY CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1925, Page 1

DAIRY CONTROL

FULL POWERS OF HOARD. [nv TELEGRAPH—I’EU rnESS association.] WELLINGTON, .March 10. “The fact that the Government has no power, right, or authority, to dictate to the board or to interfere in any manner with the board in the exercise of the hoard’s discretion.” Such is the considered opinion of the Attorney-lien-oral issued for publication by the A! blister of Agriculture to-day, regarding the assumption of the Dairy Produce Export Conrol Hoard of full [lowers of control under the Act of 1923. “By ii jiull,” added Sir E. D. Bell, “the producers decided that (ho Act should conic into force, and the producers had nine representatives on the Board to Die Government’s two.” , Section 13 of the Act gave the Board full power to determine the extent of control of the industry, and il. was not arguable that the Government had any authority or discretion in the mailer. Notice by the Board of Die introduction of absolute control took immediate effeel without any Order-in-Cnuncil. Afr Bennett, President, and Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce asked to comment said : “The sheet anchor of commercial hopes gone means the death knell of commercial interests in this connecl ion.” THE BOARD’S POLfCY . PALMERSTON N., Alnrch Hi.

Air W. Grounds, chairman of the Dairy Export Control Board opened a campaign in support of the Board’s policy of “absolute control” at Palmerston North this afternoon, lie said misunderstandings and misrepresentations went through the papers, which he was there to explain. He declared that no assurance, tacit or otherwise, had been given by those who worked to secure the passing of the Act that absolute control would not - ho enforced. Limited control was no control at all. Objection, had been made to the constitution of the Board. He and his fellow'members recognised flip desirability of the Ward System of election, but it was one of the points that didn’t come within Die scope of the Board’s power. In drawing up their report, the overseas delegates had endeavoured to cutline the main features of the position, but it was impossible to give detailed reasons for every conclusion arrived at.

Tbe speaker dwelt at. length on the reasons in favour of absolute control. The desire of Dio movement had been jiniproved marketing conditions, and unless they had the last word in D.c distribution of the produce, any so-call-ed control was useless. Those advocating control agreed that the right to handle insurance, advertising, shipping and the investigation of new markets, hut not the control of these markets, was recognised to he a source of much of the opposition to the Board. While he recognised that some interests in the business would certainly suffer, yet it always would be so in the improvement of any industry. Competition from f.o.b selling was only secondary. It was desired to maintain the same marketing channels, provided they wore efficient. Based on the Board’s experience, he declared. that pooling, scientifically done, was a sound proposition. Where was the finance coining from!-' The same merchants—only it would he done in Die future through’the Board instead of through the individual factories. It was intended to organise for service, not for monpoly. All talk of antagonising Tooley Street was a myth. Merchants. individually interviewed by the overseas delegates, had said no opposition would come from a stabilised market. which control would produce. A vote of thanks to Afr Grounds and of confidence in him as the Board's chairman was carried. An attempted amendment was not taken seriously.

C A NTEB BIT! Y PR OTEST. CHRISTCHURCH. March 16.

At a public meeting regarding the proposed compulsory control of the dairy produce of the Dominion, the following motion moved by the Hon. G. W. llussell was carried unanimously. “That this public meeting of the Canterbury people strongly urges the Government that the compulsory clause in the Dairy Produce Export Control Act. 1923, should not be brought into force.”