MILK SUPPLY

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 21, 19 October 1944, Page 6

MILK SUPPLY

Local Body Control WELLINGTON SCHEME PRAISED Authorities in support of'the pasteurization of milk were quoted by the Minister of Health, Mr. Nordmeyer, when moving the second reading of the Milk Bill in the House of Representatives last night. He said the Bill did not force people to buy pasteurized milk if they did not want it. The Government recognized that notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of informed opinion on the question of pasteurization there were certain people who preferred to have milk unpasteurized. The Minister said he knew there were people in this country who pinned their faith to the elimination of tuberculosis from dairy herds and those making efforts to produce milk from tubereuloSisfree cows were to be commended. But no matter how careful they might be in an endeavour to see tuberculosis-free milk there was only one safe method known to medical {science and that was pasteurization. Much of the antagonism to pasteurization in some quarters was due to the fact that milk had been passed off as pasteurized when it was unworthy of the name. A great deal depended first on the rapidity of heating, the point.to which the milk was heated, and the point to which it was rapidly cooled. In some factories the plant used was so obsolete that the pasteurized product was little better than the raw milk that was supposed to have been pasteurized. Where milk was thoroughly and efficiently'pas- 1 teurized no one could detect any difference in taste between it and the raw milk. In overseas countries pastuenzation was on the increase. Scientific evidence regarded'impartially would satisfy one that no worthwhile diminution m quality of the milk took place through pasteurization. Findings of Commission. The Bill, said the Minister, was the result of the findings- of the Milk Commission, which had been set up as a result of general dissatisfaction with the existing milk situation. Though not all the recommendations had been given effect to, the spirit of the commission’s report was embodied in the Bill. It was because the Government was anxious to safeguard the health of the people that the Bill had been introduced. The Minister said he was glad to say there was a growing weight of enlightened public opinion that was ■ demanding safe pasteurized milk. ■ The Bill did not set up a dictatorial* central milk authority. Evidence would be heard on the Bill by a committee of the House, and he understood that there was a desire on the part of some interests that the central authority recommended by the commission should be reinstated in the Bill. If- the committee recommended that should ‘be done the Government would give consideration to the proposal, but as it saw the position at present it felt that the local authorities should he given the job. No Bureaucratic Control.

The Minister said that the Bill did not create a bureaucratic control, but placed the responsibility for a safe and adequate milk supply with the local authorities. The Government believed that local authority must take its share more and more of government. The Bill. recognized that the old method of relying on the individual supplier to provide milk When he could was no longer satisfactory to the community, and provision was made for supply authorities. One of the great disadvantages of the supply to some of the cities in the past was that the sup-' ply was adequate in the summer, but in the winter, when the needs of the people were greater, they could not be met. Mr. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago): Particularly in Otago. Mr. Nordmeyer said that an inevitable deterioration took place in the quality when the price was thrust down, and for that reason the Government had given effect to the commission’s recommendation and- increased the price in certain areas for the purpose of inducing farmers who had gone off liquid milk production to resume the production of a safe and all-the-year-round supply. It believed that the new incentive was such that it would ensure to the inhabitants the milk they needed in.an adequate and safe supply. The Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council was quoted by the Minister to show how a metropolitan authority would function. The Bill, he added, did not force municipal ownership, but gave the right to, municipalize any part or the whole of the milk business. lie praised the Wellington municipal milk scheme, which he said was established not by a Socialist City Council but by a Socialistminded City Council. An Opposition member: Social-minded. The Minister said that if every part of New Zealand had a milk supply like that in Wellington there would be no need for the measure. The Bill provided that more than one producers’ stipply association could be set up in a milk district. This was stipulated as it was realised it was not always practicable to include suppliers in one association. The Minister said he would be glad in the committee stage to consider suggestions for the composition of the appeal authority to be instituted to consider disputes between producers, vendors and the milk authority. Replying to an interjection, the Minister said that the person who owned a cow and meantime supplied a neighbour with milk would only he permitted to do so within a milk district if the conditions, of producing the milk complied with the legislation. Leader of Opposition’s View.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, said he was glad to hear there was to bo no ccntrdl bureaucratic control. The National Party had consistently and constantly advocated decentralization and welcomed this instance of it being accepted by the Government. He also was pleased to hear the Minister say that industry could be over-controlled. No one would deny there was room for improvement. in the town milk supply and for that reason he would welcome steps to improve it. This measure, while a Government Bill, was not a party issue. From what he had seen of the Bill it seemed to be a cross between the Milk Commission’s report and a municipal supply system. He had received objections not to the principle of the Bill, but to the Bill as drafted and asking for reconsideration of some of its provisions. He considered the Bill would he an unworkable scheme as it was purely permissive and empowering and contained only a framework of a scheme. It was remarkable that the people who were expected to operate it bad not been consulted by the Government. Though a milk commission had extensively inquired into the milk supply it was now proposed to send I he present, draft of the Bill to yet. another committee of inquiry, He considered the Bill was ill-con-sidered. .Mr. Holland said the House' was trying to debate a measure which he predicted would come back radically altered from the Select Committee to be appointed to hear evidence upon it. The Minister of Health himself had intimated that three or four major amendments might have to be made, to satisfy local body opinion. “This afternoon I wanted the Prime Minister to consider whether it was wise for the second reading debate Io precede I he faking of evidence by the committee,’’ said Mr. Holland. “I suggested that the Bill be read a second time pro forma and sent onio Hie committer. and the second reading debate be then resumed after the Bill bad been re-shaped by the eommiltee. ’Phe way we arc going about il. now is to place the cart before the horse. Even at. this stage £ am_ren.ejving .my.. suj;gesti.Oß„Aryi I

urn willing to take my present speech as my second reading contribution and not ask for another opportunity tor a , reading address when the Bill comes bac from the committee.” The House by taking the full second reading debate at this stage was in feet committing itself to some me of thought that the evidence before the committee might cause it to alter veiy materially. He wished to makel it cea •that the Opposition was not opposing t Bill in its objective of a purer and bet ter milk supply for the people, but the Opposition could not be ' ex . pect ,iki prove a measure which at present <lid rot satisfy the local authorities which would administer it. If the were not prepared to approve it in its form what was the use of continuing the debate before the Bill had been betoie the committee? , o - In the first 20 clauses there were -a provisions issuing order ?'u~?f showin- that the Government itself was not dear'as to how the Bill woulwork out. There was suspicion in the country that it would wipe out a great mans of the small traders, and he himself it would do that. That must not be allowed to occur because the small trauer was a very important, section of the community. Then again, to ensure a satisfactory debate on the ‘ was necessary f©remembers of the House to be fully informed of local points of view. He believed that Wellington had a splendid system of milk If q plebiscite were taken the Wellington S““ be felt that would be the case /n othe centres. All must have the right to obtain the kind of milk they desired. °P ln J?b varied from centre to centre and the •mints of view of everyone affected must be heard and protected. .There were also important financial considerations affecting the local bodies and these would all have to be’gone into wlt h ‘he “uthcntim so that the measure would be practical and workable. For all these reasmis, the proper course was to refer the BUI te the committee. hear evidence and brim- back the amended measure tor debate? There was no life-or-death urgency about debating the Bill. Value of Present Debate. Mr. Anderton (Government, Rden) said he was pleased that the Leader of the Opposition did not. regard the Bill from a party point of view. It was not possib!e P to agree with him, however that the second reading debate should not be proceeded with at this stage. He per Tonally took the view that the very fact that members of both sides of the Hous were debating it would bring forth points of view and knowledge which would be of great benefit to members of the select C °The' t discussion would also awaken public consciousness over the milk question, leading them to think both of the value of milk as a food and also as a vehicle of disease. It was the Government s intention that the community should have Hip verv best of milk, whether pus" teurized or raw, and Mr. Holland could be assured that both forms would be available It was impossible for the public to get the best milk unless there was some form of control. The Bill would need some amending. Mr. Holland had said that the Bill was permissive, but if he was prepared to make certain operative clauses mandatory be would support him. Local authorities assuming control should have control from the source ot sunnlv to the consumer’s home, said Mr. .Anderton. He believed that would be the best method that could be adopted, and it had proved the best in Wellington. The authorities exercising control shouia have full control through inspection. Every person handling and treating milk for public consumption should be medically examined to guard against the possibility of contamination of milk. , Mr. Macfarlane (Government, Christchurch South) said there would doubtless be a good deal of misrepresentation circulated in opposition to the Bill He referred to propaganda on those lines which had been put out in Dunedin and Christchurch, designed to side-track the people on the issues. Speaking of the inspection system, he said the records showed that, in the year ended December, 1943, the Health Department inspectors had carried out 60,907 inspections throughout. New Zealand and that in Wellington under the municipal supply system 55,877 inspections had been carried out. Those figures spoke for themselves. but the inspections also showed that Wellington had a milk supply of superior quality. While he believed, in municipalization of milk supply he conceded the right of the people concerned to express their opinions and not to have any system forced on them. If they did not wish municipal control they should have the right to say so. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m.