EXPORT CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 1 July 1926, Page 1

EXPORT CONTROL

NATTO NAL IST LEAHE IF S OPINIONS. ■ WELLINGTON, June 29. That Parliament when it gave compulsory powers to the Dairy Export Control Board to control the export ol dairy produce never dreamed that these drastic powers would lie immediately exercised was the declaration of Mr Forbes, leader of the Nationalist Party, speaking in the House to-day. Tie admitted at once that the House put itself out of court by passing the Act, but be hoped there still was some parliamentary control left through the Minister of Customs refusing to permit export under these conditions. As he saw the position .when the Dairy Control Bill was passing through Parliament, Mr Forbes said, there was no intention whatever apparent from the evidence presented tp the parliamentary. committee of which he was a member that compulsion would be brought into operation. Members were told it was needed to secure collective action in regard to shipping facilities, insurance and regulation of shipping. When witnesses were, asked if they were satisfied with the present methods of marketing they told the committee they were not hostile to what was called 'Tooley Street. They pointed out that the Meat Board had compulsory powers, but did useful work more by regulating than by compulsory marketing. This, added Mr Forbes, had a good deal of 'influence in persuading the House to pass the Dairy Control Bill giving compulsory powers to the board. Ho considered the board should have made an attempt to try partial control, and if this failed they could have come with a. better case for compulsion. A good many proprietary companies had been carrying on business satisfactorily, paying farmers fair prices, but their business was being taken out of their hands by the Dairy Board, which was not a fair thing. Surely the hoard could have approached these interests with a compromise which would have enabled dairy factories preferring the board’s handling to take advantage of it, leaving proprietary concerns to continue working with tiie board in regard to the London market. “It is no use trying to bullock through measures in the interests of any section,” concluded Mr Forbes, “interfering with the Britisher’s right t,> control what lie produces.” The Minister of Landis in replying to Mr Forbes’s criticisms suggested that there would be ample opportunity later to discuss dairy control.