N.Z. PRODUCERS’ FREE MARKETING LEAGUE

Hokitika Guardian, 26 June 1926, Page 4

N.Z. PRODUCERS’ FREE MARKETING LEAGUE

(Published by Request). WELLINGTON, June If. The Kc. Hon. ,1. G. Conies, Prime Atinister, Wellington. Bear Sir, —l*utters tanning i hat you will submit to Furliament during Ihe present session proposals lor amending the Dairy Produce Export Control Act of 1923, we wish to place before you as briefly and as clearly as possible tho views of tho members of the League in regard to the existing legislation aiul its 'administration. First ol' all, we would like to impress upon you the lart that the hive Afarketing League is in no way opposed to the principle of administrative control so long as it means the supervision of manufacture, the rcguf.it ion of shipments, the mutual arrangement ( ,f freights and insurance, the promotion of tho producers’ interests in the overseas markets, and the supply of

prompt and reliable information, ft. believes tliLt in these respects the Control Board could render invaluable services not only to the producers and their industry but also to (he community at large.

Jint while the members of the League are prepared to enter into hearty cooperation with Hie Government and the Control Board towards the achievement of these ends they cannot surrender their inlierest right to handle their own prodiice as they have been doing sncessfully for many years past* without prejudicing the interests of any other section of producers. This means that the members ot tile League would welcome any such system of control as the one the Meat Producers’ Board has adopted, or any such system of co-operation as the one prevailing among the producers in Denmurk. The absolute surrender of their proprietary rights, however, is a demand to which they cannot accede in any circumstances.

It has been represented to you that a largo proportion of the dairy farmers of the Dominion are favourable to the assumption of “absolute control’’ bv the Dairv Board. We would ask you lo look at the actual facts before accepting statements to this effect at their faoo value. In June 1923, a referendum was taken with the object of ascertaining the views of the factory suppliers in regard to tile compulsory clauses of iho Dairy Produce Export Control Act. There vjere 52,89-1 suppliers eligible to vote. Of these 31,768 voted and 21,120 did not vote. Of the 31,768 votes recorded 22,284 (71 per cent.) were cast for the compulsory clauses and 9.255 (29 per cent.) against them. Tn June 1925 an election was field for the purpose of returning three members to the Board to fill the vacancies occasioned by the retirement of three of the origin'll members, in terms of the Act. The election was contested solely on the question of “Compulsory Control or Organised Co-operation.” By this time there were 55,478 suppliers entitled to vote. Of these 20,567 voted and 34,911 did not vote. Or the 20,567 votes record-

ed 12,372 (60 per cent.) was cast for I “Compulsory Control” and 7,872 (40 I njer rent.) for “Organised Co-opera-tion.” These figures show that while the proportion of “compulsion” votes declined 11 per cent, between 1923 and 1925 the 'proportion of “anti-compul-sion” votes increased hy 11 per cent. The factors that brought about this very significant change are obvious. In 1923 many of the factory suppliers, thuogh not liking the idea of “compulsion,” accepted the authoritativeassurance given in Parliament 'and oil the platform that the compulsory clauses in the Act would not he brought into operation except under the most pressing necessity. Mr Massey had stated that if the suppliers succeeded in getting .as good men on the Dairy Board as sat on tfie Meat. Board they would have nothing to fear from the compulsory clause. The Hon. AY. Nosworthy had declared that it would be some time before the compulsory powers were invoked, even if they were invoked -at all, and Mr "William Grounds, the present chairman of the Board, had stated in effect That there would be no compulsion whatever unless it- were proved to be absolutely necessary in the interests of the producers. It was with these assurances and with the helief that an Order-in-Council would be required to make the decision of the Board effec-tic-e that the suppliers recorded ffieir votes in v 1023.

By 1925 the Board, without waiting for any of the reasons Mr Massey had indicated and without any exhaustive examination of the position, had resolved that “Absolute Control” should ho brought into operation in .September of this year. This vjac, the one hone of contention at the election of three members of the Board twelve months ago and the result was an enormous drop in the support given to “compul-

sion.” Since then the Feeling against 1 “Absolute Control” has increased sill over the country, as resolutions of protest from suppliers and factory directors show, and there is good ground for believing that if the issue of “compulsion” pure and simple,, were (submitted to the suppliers again, with their accumulated knowledge of the situation, it would be rejected. Wo are enclosing with this ’otter reasons formulated by us why the introduction of “Absolute Control” should he postponed for a further twelve months in order that this revolutionary proposal may* be more fully considered by Parliament and by the producers engaged in the industry. Tho members of the League would welcome a personal interview with you, and trust that you will see your way to receive them. For the Executive, G. T. Hall. ENCLOSURE.. DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT • CONTROL. Reasons for postponing the operation of the compulsory clauses of “The Dairy Produce Export Control Act.” 1. When the Bill was before Parliament the Prime Atinister, the A 1 mister of Agriculture and other prominent members of the [Louse of Representatives gave assurances that “compiiisioii” would be brought into force onlyin tiise of urgent necessity.

2. When tne Bill was submitted for approval to a vote of the producers these assurances carried great weight and exercised a very* big influence in determining the result of the referendum.

3. —When the. Bill was passed by Parliament- and when it was submitted for approval to a vote of the producers it was believed the Board would be elected on the basis of “Single Wards” and with each producer l:av-t ing one vote. 4. was understood that in the event of n crisis or for any extraordinary reason it was considered necessary to bring “compulsion” into operation this would he done at the discretion of the Government by Order-iu-Couneil.

o. From an Imperial point of view postponement should be arranged to enable Air Coates to investigate the position during his impending visit to London. Already there is very considerable anxiety as to the effect of

“compulsion” upon the trading relations between the Dominion and the Alotlier Country.

6.—That a large number of factories are exempt from "compulsion” and therefore are given preferential treatment ever other factories. T.—ln addition to the above main reasons, every* constitutional doctrine and practice requires that “compulsion” be postponed pending the election of a Dairy* Board truly representative of the interests concerned.