ZONING ALL WRONG

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 60, Issue 4342, 11 October 1950, Page 10

ZONING ALL WRONG

METHOD CONDEMNED

ABOLITION DEMANDED

FARMERS CARRY RESOLUTION

' “That 'this branch again confirms its opposition to the compulsory zoning of dairy companies by the Dairy Board and adheres to the principle of the freedom of the individual,” was the text of a remit sent forward by the Kerepehi -branch of -Federated Farmers to the executive meeting of the Northern Thames sub-province of the organisation held recently in Thames.

In speaking to the remit Mr D. A. Hill said that his branch thought the question of zoning should not be allowed to be dropped. It appeared that a position had arisen in which no correspondence would be accepted on the matter by the federation.

Mr Hill explained that the Minister had made the reply to a letter that it would be wrong for him to interfere with the decisions of the dairy board. The speaker said certain questions arose in his mind and required to be answered. He wanted to know if any section of the farmers in the northern Thames area had asked for zoning. 'fad the Minister of the board ever consulted with the farmers about zoning ? It seemed to him, -continued Mr -Hill, that Federated Farmers had been ignored. There -wais no evidence that any section of Federated Farmers had asked for zoning. The farmers stood -for freedom of the individual. Competition and only competition brought down costs.

In times of peace no board or group should say that farmers had to supply any particular company. He wa® not biased towards any company and the Kerepehi branch of Federated Farmers wag comprised of suppliers of different factories. A S tand For Principles

Federated Farmers were only giving lip service to the principle of the freedom of the individual, continued Mr Hill. As an organisation Federated Farmers should stand upon high principles and respect for the rights of the individual. The Kerepehi branch was one of the first branches of the organisation in New Zealand to foresee the dangers of zoning. Was the decision of the branch unanimous to oppose zonlfig? asked Mr G. C. Donovan, of Whenuakite. In reply Mr Hill said that he had made enquiries all round his area and he knew of no one in favour of zoning. Mr H. R. Hicks, of Ngatea, drew attention to the reply which had been given by Federated Farmers that it was not a matter which should be dealt with by the organisation but should be left to .dairy companies to settle.

Abolition Dem anded

What was wanted, said Mr Hicks, was a’ constructive suggestion to place before the legislative authorities. No one seemed to put forward a definite proposal that zoning be abolished. He would, therefore, move as an amendment that the meeting demanded the total abolition of the dairy zoning regualtions- and relative laws. He had 'become very unpopular over the matter, said Mr S. E. Hall chairman of the meeting, who. explained that he had thought it better to keep out of the matter and let the dairy companies settle their differences. Certain companies had broken the two factory rule.

Dairy policies had become a burning question and that had influenced him in his decision which may have been wrong. ,

But people had their rights, continued Mr Hall, and evidently now the whole matter had been opened up again. The remit wduld do much to have the whole matter ventilated. Suppliers to the number of 41 at Kati kati had taken a stand and were defying the ruling of the Dairy Board. He was very pleased indeed to hear the remarks of the chairman, said Mir C. G. Jackson. He could not understand how any person of average intelligence could vote against the remit. It was wrong for ant section of the community to try and dominate the rest of the community. The principle was the same whether the Dairy Board did the zoning or some new body did the zoning. It was the zoning that was wrong, not the body putting a wrong principle into operation. -Mr Jackson urged all present to support the motion. Mr L. Tye informed the meeting that he had never heard any request -from farmers’ organisations or from suppliers for zoning. He was in favour of the remit in principle though there would need to be some sort of check on competition.

Mr G. C. Donovan, of Whenuakite, whilst agreeing with the motion and the principle of freedom thought that instead of control from the top there •should be zoning by the farmers themselves. There should 1 be a submission to regimentation by their fellow farmers.

Mr Hicks amendment that the abolition of zoning be demanded was carried unanimously.