MARKETING BILL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 195, 15 May 1936, Page 12

MARKETING BILL

Passed by Legislative Council PROTECTION AGAINST “BOOTLEGGING” Having been declared a money Bill and therefore not to be amended, the Primary Products Marketing Bill proceeded unscathed through its final stages in the Legislative Council yes terday. During the committee phase, which was commenced at 11 a.m., cei tain clauses were attacked, but oppon cuts were unable to do more than register a formal protest. The Bill was passed at 12.30, the Leader, Hon. M. Eagan, thanking the Council for the "cordiality with which the measure had ibeen received.” The Hon. F. Waite (Otago) sought more information about the differentiation to be fixed for the prices of butler and cheese. Replying, Mr. Fagan said the differentiation would take effect from August 1, this year, but he was not in a position to state what it would be. The Government recognised that it was a serious question. Tiie Hon. It. Masters (Taranaki) expressed concern about the clause providing that all dairy produce was to become the property of the Crown. He asked what would be the position regarding condensed milk, milk powder, baby foods and other products of milk other than butter and cheese. He suggested that the Government should contine itself to butter and cheese. Support for his plea was given by the Hon. J. McLeod (Taranaki). Mr. Fagan explained that it was not proposed at present to take over milk products other than butter and cheese. The Council could leave the question to the good sense of the Government. In answer to the Hon. Sir James Allen (Otago) he admitted that the State could take over other dairy produce by Gazette notice. Liens Not Interfered With. The position of lien-holders was raised by the Hon. D. Buddo (Christchurch),'who asked what protection remained when the Government took over butter and cheese at the point of shipment. Mr. Fagan said any person who held a lien would have the ordinary recourse to law. That was no concern of the Government. Exception was taken by the Hon. J. Alexander (Auckland), on behalf of the Hon. W. Perry (Wellington), who was unable to attend, to the method of determining the liability of any person who offended the Government by selling dairy produce except at the proposed fixed price. Mr. Perry had expressed the opinion that there was no similar clause in any New Zealand statute. He regarded it as extremely severe. Mr. Fagan said (he deletion of the provision would weaken the entire object of the Bill. The Government had to protect itself against bootlegging in butter. It had to take very wide powers to see that there was no bootlegging. The Hon. R. McCallum (Marlborough) : 1 strongly- advise the Leader of the Council to leave it there. The succeeding clause prescribing penalties up to £2OO for an individual offender and up to £lOOO for a firm also provoked questions by Mr. Alexander. Mr. Fagan pointed out that similar penalties were embodied in the Motor Spirits Regulation Act of the last Government. In any event, the courts would take into account the degree of seriousness of the offence. Substantial penalties were essential to prevent bootlegging in butter. The committee stage was completed at. 12.20 and the Bill was read a third time, 10 minutes later, and passed.