THE PUTARURU PRESS. Office ... Main Street ’Phone 28 – . P.O. Box 44 (Lewis, Portas and Dallimore’s Buildings.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1924. DAIRY AMENDMENT BILL.

Putaruru Press, Volume II, Issue 51, 9 October 1924, Page 2

THE PUTARURU PRESS. Office ... Main Street ’Phone 28 - . P.O. Box 44 (Lewis, Portas and Dallimore’s Buildings.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1924. DAIRY AMENDMENT BILL.

THOUGH a small measure of only three sections the Dairy Industry Amendment Bill, which was introduced to t<he House of Representatives last week has a very great bearing on the future of many dairy farmers. The measure is a validation of certain illegal acts committed by certain dairy companies and is retrospective in effect. Retrospective legislation is almost invariably dangerous, and if 4 alone for this account is to be de--1 precated. The law is based on the fundamental principles of justice ,and equity and retrospective legislation can rarely do anything but inters fere with the rights of individuals who have no opportunity of altering their circumstances to comply with the retrospective law. The act controlling companies and prescribing regulations for the formation of companies and the limitation of liabilities is the outcome of experience showing the need for legislation to protect shareholders. Certain broad principles have been defined by Statute and to depart from these principles or sanction an infringement is a dangerous act. It is a precedent. The point at- once raised why should statutory restrictions be removed only in respect to co-operative dairy companies? Will it end with co-opera-l tive dairy companies? The Bill does l not suggest to alter the law so as to ■U"* bring into effect some new principles of company law-; it merely ratifies certain acts done by certain companies in the past and does not apply to .future acts. There was no need ~~~ for any special legislation had the companies complied with the Companies Act; and the Bill seems to be a premium for negligence. Surely it is a dangerous principle to say that a certain action which was illegal when done yesterday, shall be legalised to-day, but shall be illegal if done to-morrow? And that is really what the Bill implies. ~ ~ Though the •principle o r . the Bill ? may be deprecated, there is the noint to consider whether the actions of the companies to whom it is intended to bring relief may not have prejudiced the interests of their shareholders, and have a detrimental effect on the dairying industry. Such may be no justification of the acts or of having acted contrary to the law T , but it may present a position that requires some consideration. In any course to be pursued is it equitable that - the individual should through liis own neglect be entitled to benefit Ik, at the expense of some other individual? However great the desire to validate certain actions may be care must be exercised in such validation that no unjust injury is inflicted on other persons or companies. It is here where the proposed measure falls —short and it woukLseem that the pos- __ Bill on certain has not a very sermight be in- | The presumption is -fhat the intention of the Government r '' in introducing the Bill was validation ip- ‘to those shareholders who sought it, t not an instrument of possible oppresI sion against other, companies.