COMPULSORY CONTROL OF PRODUCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 31 March 1926, Page 4

COMPULSORY CONTROL OF PRODUCE.

To the Editor of the “Timaru Herald” . Sir,—At the deputation to the Prime Minister on the 2.‘Srd in connection with Stale controls in industry the Minister for Agriculture asked the question: “What is the danger oi compulsion, and where?' I hear a lot about it but cannot got it explained.” Such a question from a Minister oil-the .Crown in a- Non-Socialist Government is not only -surprising but gives' grave cause for anxiety. In our view, thecompulsory clauses in our various Produce Control Acts, ... if.; 'put Into, practice, take away from every pi oducer the right that he, .as a British citizen, has to dispose of his property as he thinks fit in a legitimate manner. Does not the Minister realise the dangerous principle involved? Does he not see that if the principle "'of compulsion is once admitted as sound, it,: can'-'be applied to every form Of •industry? Does he not also realise that it- is nutting into practice flic principle which is at the very foundation of the Socialist policy which is an entire negation of private rights and undermines the liberty of the individual? No reasonable man. can object to voluntary co-operation amongst any motions of the community, producers or otherwise, for improving the prevailing conditions of marketing, etc. This is perfectly feasible, but has never been tried seriously in New .Zealand. It has always .been .rceog r nised that any combine which becomes' .strong enough to compel those outside its circle, to come in against their will, by the use of economic pressure, ,i.? "a danger to the ’•'■■community. Even ; in '.America, tl/e homo of. Trusts,, legislation has been passed to preserve, the rights and liberties of individual traders • against the pressure of. large.: combines and'trusts. The principle, behind all anti-trust legislation is Lo safeguard the rights of a. minority who desire to exercise their personal initiative and freedom of trade in a legitimate manner. Even we in New Zealand have our anti-tru.st legislation which recognises and is based on this principle, yet the Minister of Agriculture asks: “Wlmt is the danger of compulsion?” The answer is, that compulsion when applied in such a manner a,s to take away from , the individual his fundamental right to deal with his own property in such a ■legitimate manner as lie thinks fit, is establishing by law the very evil which justifies all anti-trust legislation.

We ask why lias not compulsion been introduced in other countries? We also ask the Minister if ho knows how America dealt with an almost exactly similar situation amongst producers? There the farmers asked for .some such compulsory .scheme, but the Government recognising the injustice of such a policy refused, to legislate, but they did pass permissive legislation to allow producers to form voluntary controls, with the proviso that the Attorney-General had (die right to veto their operations if th.ev were in contravention to (lie antitrust laws/ Tn other words, .if the Attorney-General saw anv undue interference with private rights of trading he could interfere. Why was not this tried in New Ze,aland? and why has our .Parliament deliberately taken aw.iv the rights of private trading instead of protecting those rights a.s was done iii America? Einallv may we point out that the Meat Hoard has the same powers of compulsion as the Dairy Board, vet the former lias in its recent statement emphasised that it exercised “a wise policy to maintain an opmi door policy and freedom of trading.'’ [Tinier Ibis is possible for a producer to have hi.s meat frozen at his own e os t and to consir/ii if where he pleases.. This Board has abstained from using its compulsory powers, evidently com sidering them repugnant to the principles of personal freedom of trs.de. It lias epnarent.lv done good work- in the producers’ interests, and at. the same time not encroached .on their personal' rights of disposal. Therefore it is very di(Tie”lt to understand why the Dairy Board ea”not at least "dvo the “open door and freedom of trading” a trial before dol'ihoratelv ouftiug in force a. policy which is Socialistic in principle and dangerous to the wbo'o eomnvnity. For if it fails it would, as I'd 1 ' M««scv said, ‘‘be a positi'e ftis"..'— Vn etc N.Z. "’’■'T.VMtK LEAGUE. 2dth March, 1920.