DAIRY CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 1 July 1926, Page 2

DAIRY CONTROL

CRITICISM OF BOARD’S POLICY. WELLINGTON, June 29. Speaking in the Address-in-Rcply debate this afternoon, Mr Geo. Eorbes, l.eader of the National Party, expressed grave doubts as to the wisdom of absolute control of the export of dairy produce. M r Eorbes said that when the Bill was going through the House he was under the impression that there was no intention of bringing the compulsory clauses of the Act into operation. •Members had been told that the powers were for the regulation of shipment, etc., and that there was no feeling of hostility towards Tooley street. It had been pointed out also to members, as an argument in favour of allowing the Bill to pass, that the Meat Board had not used its compulsory powers. The very fact that the Meat Board had adopted a wise policy had a. good effect in influencing the House to give these powers to the Dairy Control Board. Air Eorbes said that lie had been on the Dairy Pool Committee, and members of it had been assured that there was no intention of taking over the control of the whole of the marketing of the produce. However, tue Board had decided to take over the whole of the dairy produce of New Zealand, and he thought they should have been able to make out a stronger ease for their decision than had been announced up to the present. it had been understood that the powers given the Board were to he used for the purpose of enabling them to bargain with the shipping companies, hut members were misled, in that they were not informed that the powers were for the purpose of dealing with the whole of the dairy produce. It had been said that partial control would not lie satisfactory, hut why had that not been tried first? If the Board had found partial control unsatisfactory they could then liavo talked of the wider powers. A minimum of compulsion should have been tried first. The present system under which producers and exporters were working had been ill operation for years, and in parts of the country there was very little dissatisfaction with it. The position of proprietary concerns could well he understood. .Money had been invested in these businesses, and they were now required to hand over their businesses to an organisation they looked upon as hostile. That was not altogether fair. If the Board had been able to say that it was unable to make a success of things liecaiise of the actions of proprietary and other companies, they would have had a reasonable argument, but be did not know that the Board lad ever approached the proprietary companies. Surely among business men there ought to lie some compromise scheme that could be arrived at before full control was brought into operation. He thought Parliament should have an opportunity of hearing fresh evidence ns to wliv the measure of control desired by the Board was necessary, and why partial control would not he satisfactory. It was no use in this country trying to bullock measures through against the interests of a large section of the people. After all. the Board’s policy was aimed at what every Briton regarded as a right —the right to control his own production. The Board ought to he able to show to the House that the course it adopted was absolutely necessary. That had not been done. ’’ As a member of the Dairy Produce Committee.” lie declared. “I want to say that I was convinced by their evidence that they lmd no intention of bringing in the compulsory clauses.”