AUCKLAND’S MILK

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 12887, 13 June 1936, Page 7

AUCKLAND’S MILK

REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

POWERS SOUGHT BY COUNCIL ■SHOULD BE GRANTED

3\tUST BE

PROVIDED

MUNICiPALiSATiOX IS BEST SOLUTION

(Press Association). AUCKLAND. June 12

A vindication of the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council’s policy, and support on nearly all points for - theincreased powers sought b.v it, is. given in the rvnort o' tho Executive Commission of Agriculture on its inquiry into the -city’s, milk trade hrl-d in Auckland in March. The report r e commends to Parliament that, the powers bo 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 for a, report, and it was these clauses that Sir Francis Fraser, the deputy-chairman, Mr.. 1). Jones, and G. A. Duncan inquired into. The Milk Council indicated that it wished to.proceed with three clauses. The first would give it power to resolve that after GO days it had the solo right to purchase all the milk for the, district supply. The second, which was described a ; an emergency clause, in case the existing interests refused to carry out the services at reasonable rates,, would, give power to engage in the pim-lnise, collection, treatment, storage, distribution arm manufacture of milk. The third clause, would enable the council to make a special levy as security fm a loan to carry out its powers. The chief alteration (ho Commission recommends is that the right of appeal in tho fixation of priors should bo provided, in -form oi an independent tribunal, consisting of three members, one of whom should be a stipendiary magistrate. The only otlr. r changes in the. Coin, cil’s original clauses are the limiting of the proposed levy to Id 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 creating or selling .should not be entered on without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. The report declares the existing system to be uneconomic, and considers that increased .powers an necessary for the purpose? of the original Act to be carried out. it ay:? that the Council has done excelL-nt work under great difficulties. and that on a logical view Parliament must grant added powers or. repeal the Act. The fatter course would result in the evils which originally oixstecl recurring.

Iho Commission is of opinion that municipalisation of supply would lie tho host solution o: tho probl.m, but that lho powers sought would rjmove most of the difficulties without causing a distni banco o: existing interests which municipal-! aition 'would create. It considers the interests of TO or 80 produc-r-vendors could norbe placed before those of 25-0,01.,') consumem. In many cases those* who suffered from the scheme could be adequately dc-alf with by componration, and those who could not, through being unsuited for oilier work, could he provided for by group mg their supplies. The interests of the -consumers would not be affected, as they would have the choice, of raw -.-i- pasteurised, milk, and it would all l>e oi uniform quality. To de eribe the rationalisation of a miblie utility service in the common interest, as in terfercing with personal rights and liberties was a misuse of Innguige.