AUCKLAND MILK I SUPPLY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21808, 13 June 1936, Page 16

AUCKLAND MILK I SUPPLY

| POLICY OF CONTROL VINDICATED | REPORT OF EXECUTIVE COMMISSION | WIDER POWERS RECOMMENDED I t ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, June 12. A vindication of the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council’s policy, and support on nearly all points for the increased powers sought by it, is given in the report of the Executive Commission of Agriculture on its enquiry into the city’s milk trade, held in Auckland in March. The report recommends to Parliament that the powers be granted, subject to certain safeguards. When the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Amendment Bill was before Parliament in 1935, certain clauses were deferred and referred to the Executive Commission of Agriculture for a report, and it was these clauses that Sir Francis Frazer (deputy-chairman), and Messrs D. Jones and G. A. Duncan, enquired into. The council indicated it wished to proceed with three clauses. The first would give it power to resolve that after 60 days it had the sole right to purchase all milk for the district supply. The second, which was described as an emergency clause m case existing interests refused to carry out services at reasonable rates, would give power to engage in the purchase, collection, treatment, storage, distribution. and manufacture of milk. The third clause would enable the council to make a special levy as security for a loan to carry out its powers.

Right of Appeal The chief alteration the commission recommends is that a right of appeal in the fixation of prices should be provided in the form of an independent tribunal consisting of three members, one of whom should be a stipendiary magistrate. The only other changes in the council’s original clauses are the limiting of the proposed levy to Jd a gallon, and safeguards against the council using its emergency powers without sufficient reason. These provide that manufacturing should not be engaged in while existing dairy factories are willing to take all the available surplus at reasonable prices, and that treating or selling should not be entered on without the consent of the Minister for Agriculture. The report declares the existing system to be uneconomic, and considers the increased powers are necessary for the purposes of the original act to be carried out. It says the council has done excellent work under great difficulties, and that on a logical view Parliament must grant the added powers or repeal the act. The latter course would result in the recurrence of the evils which originally existed.

Interests of Consumers The commission is of opinion that municipalisation of the supply would be the best solution of the problem, but that the powers sought would remove most of the difficulties without causing the disturbance of existing interests which municipalisation would create. It considers that the interests of 70 or 80 producer could not be placed before those of 200,000 consumers. In many cases those who suffered from the scheme could be adequately dealt with by compensation, and those who could not, through being unsuited for other work, could be provided for by grouping their supplies. The interests of consumers would not be affected, as they would have the choice of raw or pasteurised milk, and it would all be of uniform quality. To describe the rationalisation of a public utility service in the common interest as interfering with personal rights and liberties was a misuse of language.