DAIRY CONTROL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 17 March 1925, Page 4

DAIRY CONTROL

MR, GROUND’S MEETING

LIST OF QUESTIONS. FACTORIES’ FEDERATION ACTIVE

Arising out of the recent meeting of the Federation of Taranaki Cooperative Dairy Factories, a list of questions has been drawn up to be submitted to the chairman of the Dairy i J i educe Board, Mr. W. Grounds, at his meeting in the Grand Theatre, Hawera, to-morrow at 11 a.m. The questions, which are given below, cover matters in connection with the policy or the board upon which further inrormation is desired. The meeting to-morrow has aroused much interest in Taranaki, and dairymen are. given their opportunity of getting information about the proposed taking of absolute control of produce by the board.- It is expected there will be a big meeting. A copy of the questions, as here printed, will be handed to Mr. Grounds on his arrival in Hawera, this evening, in order that he may have ample time to consider them. The list of questions follows: 1. What is the object of the board MR GROUNDS’S MEETING.

August 1, 192(>, and for the granting of the Order-in-Couneil forthwith?■ 2. Has the board definite knowledge that, in the event of absolute control, the Tooley Street firms will work amicably with and not antagonistic to the board? . 3. Regarding finance will Mr. Grounds please explain:— (a) The details of the financial arrangements expected to be made, with particular, reference to how the factories will obtain their advances on produce? (h) Whether in the event of all produce being consigned to the board in London the advances to the factories on produce in store and afloat will be made by the board under Tooley Street letters of credit, or by independent arrangements proposed to be entered into by the board with the New Zealand banks? (The point of this question is, will the Tooley Street firms advance money on produce which is not actually consigned to them). (c) If the board can safeguard a factory which has had advances from its agent other than advances on produce, in the event of the taking of absolute control bringing about the calling lip of such advances. 4. Does the board-, intend to stop f.o.b. selling, and can that be done without taking absolute control? 5. Can shipments from New Zealand be regulated without taking absolute control, assuming that such regulations would involve holding back produce ? 6. .Where does the board intend to store butter and cheese in order to maintain regularity of supply; in New Zealand or in England? , . 7. It is assumed that absolute control or partial control (if .the kitter involved holding back produce tojfegulate shipments) will mean that the proceeds of sale will have to be ’ “pooled’,’—how would the “pooling” be carried out? 8. In the introduction of a superfine grade how wilt factories making unpasteurised cheese be dealt with? There is some evidence that our best- quality unpasteurised cheese usually scores lower .grade points than our best quality pasteurised. It would seem therefore that if grade points as at present allocated are mane the deciding factor in determining the superfine. grade, - then factories making unpasteurised cheese will be at a disadvantage. 9. Has the board any intention of establishing its own selling floor in London ?

10. At what point will control commence? In vat, in factory or in store? 11. In the event of the board taking absolute control, is it certain that the one half per cent, commission which represents the remuneration of the loca] agents of the Tooley Street firms will be saved to .the industry ? THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION. CANNOT CONTROL BOARD. AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT. (BY TEIiKOHAPB—PKItsrtS ASSOCIATION.

WEDLINGTON, March 16. Reference to the assumption of absolute control by the Dairy Board is dealt with in a statement by s the Attorney-General (Sir Francis Bell) and issued by the Minister of Agriculture to-day as follows : The Government is in receipt almost daily of resolutions from Chambers of Commerce and letters from business firms and individuals clearly indicating that the bodies passing the resolutions and the writers of the letters are under the impression that the question whether the Dairy Produce Control Board constituted under the Act of 1923, should or should not exercise its statutory power of assuming absolute or limited control of the export of dairy produce is a question for the determination of the Government, or alternatively, that the issue, -upon the. advice of the Government, of an Order-in-Council under section 12 of the Act is a condi-

tion precedent to assumption by the board of such control, and that the Government can therefore prevent the board from exercising its statutory discretion bv declining to advise His Excellency to issue that Order-in-Council. That impression is entirely erroneous. JjJhe fact is that the Government has hot the power, right, or authority to dictate to the board o,r to interfere in any manner with the board in the exercise of the board’s discretion. The Dairy Produce Export Control Act, passed in 1923, made provision in its second section that the Act should only come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Goyernor-General-in-Coun-cil by proclamation, and that the proclamation should not issue unless the majority of producers at a special, poll to be taken for the purpose voted in favour of the proposal that the Act should be brought into operation. Thus, by its first provision, Parliament directed that it should be for the producers to determine at a poll whether or not the powers conferred by the Act (which are exactly the same as the powers which.had been conferred on the Meat Export Control Board by the Meat Export Control Act of 1921-22) should come into force, and there followed provisions enacting that if the majority of producers decided that the powers should be conferred on'them, that those powers should be entrusted to a board to be known as the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board, consisting of eleven persons—two appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of tjie'Minister at Agriculture, and nine other persons elected by the direct votes of the producers, six from producers .carrying on business in the North Island and three from producers in the South Island. The* first poll to determine whether the Act should or should not ccnie into force took place on October 17, 1923, and bv a large maioritv (the figures being 22,284 for and 9255 against), the producers determined that the Act should come into force and consequently determined that the who’e powers conferred by the Act should be entrusted to the Board of Control upon which they, the producers, were to be represented by nine persons elected by themselves, and the Govern-

ment only by two persons appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture. Parliament left it to the producers to say whether or not they would have the. board to control export; and. in the event of their decision in the affirmative, Parliament gave them the board, elected by themselves, to determine what statutory powers should be exercised. With the functions of that board and its exercise of its statutory duties Parliament has not conferred upon the Government any authority wha'teve, r to int/Grforc. . r The reason for insertion of section 12 was to enable better effect to be given to the board’s resolutions where the board resolved to assume not absolute but limited control. The Minister of Agriculture is introduced into that section as licenser to instruct the 'Customs authorities of “the conditions and restrictions” approved by the board in the case of export and where the hoard assumed, limited control, and to pre- ~ v scribe conditions specially applicable to l limited control. . , , , 1 Section 12 can be securely employed to enable the Customs to be exactly informed from time to time of the conditions under which produce may be exported bv individuals, but* when the board assumes absolute, control there is nothing left requiring a license and full additional effect is given to that decision through the Customs by sub- - section (3) of section 13 already quoted which requires that the Collector or Customs must have an entry fo.r export with evidence, that the export is permitted bv the board, In fact, section 14 provides all that is necessary m the case of assumption of absolute control, I while section 12 is a useful 1 adjunct to the hoard in any decision to assume limited control. It is honed that this. statement may remove the erroneous impression that the Government can control the hoard in the exercise of its discretion by agreeing or refusing to issue an Order-in-Council under the Customs Act.' “SHEET ANCHOR GONE.”, WELLINGTON, .March. 26. Mr. H. D. Bennett, president oi the Wellington Ohteumlber of Commerce, asked to comment on the AttorneyGeneral’s statement, said: “The sheet anchor of commercial hopes has gone.. It means the death knell to <oinmercial interests in this connection. PROTEST FROM CANTERBURY. CHRTSTOHIJRCH, March 16 At a, public meeting regarding - the proposed compulsory control of the dairy /produce of the Dominion the following motion, moved by the Hon. U. W. Russell, was carried unanimously: “That this pubic meeting of Canterbury people strongly urges the Government t-hht the compulsory clause in the Dairy Produce Export Control Act of 1923 should not be brought into force.” ,