DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3028, 27 April 1926, Page 4

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL

SHOULD IT BE ABSOLUTE? When the Parliament of New Zealand passed legislation giving the dairy board power to exercise absolute control over the whole of the dairy produce of the Dominion, it thereby conferred legal sanction on a system of syndicalism to be applied to one of the primary industries of the country.

What is meant by syndicalism? It means that those engaged in an industry shall control such industry without regard to how such control may affect the rest of the community or State.

In delegating such absolute power to a Board, which is elected by a limited proportion of the people, the legislature virtually abdicated its own authority. It is the duty of Parliament at all times to exercise such general control over the acts of citizens as will ensure that no one section, class or body, shall carry on any enterprise in disregard of the general interest of the State. In other words. Parliament is established to protect the interests of the nation as a whole and cannot forego the maintenance .of that authority. Were the Dairy Board by any inadvertant acts to place the industry, over which it is given control, in jeopardy or in such position as to seriously affect the Dominion’s interests the Government would perforce be compelled to act in protection, of these interests. Parliament then, by this legislation has created the anomalous situation of giving a privately constituted Board legal authority of control must rest with the Government- of the country. That a wrong position in principle is thus established appears very plain and such being the ease the earliest opportunity should be availed of to review the situation. At the time of the passing of the legislation an assurance was given by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Massey, that the absolute control would not be brought into operation save in a national emergency Xowithstnnding that assurance an error was made in failing to reserve the/power of ultimate sanction in the hands of (he Government. In meeting a deputation of business men on the quest ion the present Prime Minister, Mr. Contes, said “he did not like the word control.” We can understand the remark as coming from him, for no doubt be realises tlmf j n the ultimate conclusion as affecting the Dominion's interests, control cannot rest with any Board however constituted, but must devolve upon the Government. That the indus-

try should be regulated, both in the interests of all engaged in it and

oi: the people in New Zealand i general, no reasonable persons wil dispute. Regulation to such ends, how

ever, is a different matter from the absolute control by which the

Board will take command of the whole of produce, with or without

flie consent of the producer. A great deal of discussion on this question has resolved round the words “control, regulation, com-

pulsion, absolute control.” It is undesirable to have so vital a matter dealt with as a mere verbal

sparring match. Coming to bed rock there are no objections to the regulation of trade by the pro-

ducers. This is being done by Denmark and elsewhere with good results for the countries concerned. The regulation of trade by the Meat Control Board raises no cry of protest from any part of New

Zealand. Such regulation meets the exigencies of trade by organised methods, yet leaves to the producer the right of control in the

final disposal of his produce. What is maintained by many throughout the Dominion is that for a Board to exercise the power of absolute

control over the entire produce o an industry is as a general prin

eiple dangerous in relation to the important matter of national policy and quite unjustifiable apart from an emergency of national danger, when , the Government

should take the responsibility of temporary protective action. •It rests then, on those who advocate the policy of absolute control to show wherein it is necessary to

apply such methods. What is the emergency which calls for such drastic course of procedure? Why is it required in the case of dairy produce when trade can be properly regulated in the case of “meat” without it? If there is need for the absolute control of all dairy produce by a Board, whose members do not stand to bear the loss in case of mistakes or failures, does the same apply to other produce of the country, and, if not, what are the conditions which differentiate the requirement of free market in one case and not in another?

These are all questions which should be fully answered by the

exponents of what lias been variously referred to- as “control” “absolute control,” “compulsion.” The references to the practices of voluntary organisation in one place or time as against others where organisation is absent is no answer to any of the questions. It is but a mere side-stepping of the issues raised. Special references to the dairy trade of Denmark, where advanced voluntary organisation and other factors give the produlcers spleeial marketing advantages do not at all affect the question of why it is necessary to have absolute control in New Zealand. In discussing this problem we are not considering it from the standpoint of any sectional interest. We

recognise that primary production is of most vital importance to this country, therefore we desire to see it advanced to the fullest. The producers should receive every consideration not only for their own sake, but for the reason that the stability of the country rests largely on their industry. It is from the national view

point we regard this whole, matter and without any prejudice Whatsoever we feel called on to emphasise the dangers which attach to abolishing voluntary marketing, and the vesting in a private Board powers of compulsion and control which should only be applied in case of national emergency by the Government on behalf of the people as a whole. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League).