DAIRY PRODUCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 205, 30 August 1926, Page 14

DAIRY PRODUCE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In his address to suppliers' committees, Mr. Goodfellow is reported to have used the phrase, "national control of dairy produce." This phrase is incorrect for the following reasons: (1) All New Zealand dairy produce exported to Great Britain will nit be under compulsory control, as the outputs of certain factories are exempted. (2) The New Zealand Dairy Prodpee Export Control Board is the outcome of a referendum of dairy* farmers—some '23,000 out of 55,000 dairy farmers voted for the Act to be brought into Operation and this gave them power to set up a board.. The Act was never submitted to the people of New Zealand. Under the Act, the board is vested with powers which in other British communities are exercised by Parliament only. National control implies State control, but the Dairy Control Board levies its own taxes, and makes its own laws unhampered by responsibilities for its actions. If it ruins the dairy farmers, they have no claim for compensation against the board. National control means control by the people of New Zealand or their representatives. National control operates in the case of prohibition, but if only the brewers and hotel-keepers were allowed to vote, that would be sectional control. Therefore, dairy produce control is not national control but sectional control, and has the double objection of being not only unconstitutional, but unfair too. The manufacture of dairy produce is carried on by two classes of companies, viz., co-operative and private or proprietary. The capital in the cooperative companies is owned by tens of thousands of dairy farmers, whereas that of the proprietary companies belongs to a few individuals. Even with sectional legislation, one would naturally haveexpected two distinct polls to have been | taken, viz., one by the co-operative companies' shareholders, and the other by the private companies' shareholders. Instead thousands of farmers without even a penny piece invested in a proprietary company were allowed to decide the fate of the proprietary companies, whereas the shareholders of the proprietary companies, as such, had no vote at all. A parallel to tins would be to deprive the people of New Zealand of their vote, and allow the people of Australia to decide New Zealand's affairs.* The Government could have disarmed criticism by allowing the shareholders of each individual company, co-operative or proprietary, to decide if their partiei* lar company would accept the board's dictation, or whether they preferred to manage their own affairs. If the legislation regarding dairy produce control has done, or will do, incalculable harm to New Zealand, it has at least accomplished one good thing, -viz: It has shbwn that a large majority'of the Reform party pose as Constitutionalists when seeking election, but act as Socialists when they have gained their object. For proof of this latter statement, scan the Reform party election advertisements and the speeches of its candidates, then refer to the division list in the newspapers of Ajigust 5 and 6, which shows that a majority flf the Reform party voted with the Labour party against postponement of compulsory control. One can well imagine the plight of many members of the Reform party now comfortably seated in Parliament when they face the election again, and are confronted with this divipion list. Their old tactics of critic cising the Labour party's platform will be useless, us "actions speak louder than words."—l am, etc., ELECTOR. •