Manawatu Daily Times Less Government in Business

Manawatu Times, 25 March 1926, Page 8

Manawatu Daily Times Less Government in Business

The deputation which waited on the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday was mainly representative of business interests and plainly asked for less government in business. The chairman, Mr Mclntosh, made it clear that Government control and artificial regulations of trade reminiscent of the war period are still with us. He also told Mr Coates that the greatest service a government could render at the present time is to take its hands off legitimate and honest enterprise and tell it to go ahead and do the most and the best possible. One of the strongest arguments advanced by the deputation was the danger through undue interference and restriction of diverting the flow of capital, and some of the recent happenings in our industrial life are bound to cheek the investment of British capital in certain directions in this country. After discussing various phases of government and municipal trading the deputation touched upon the compulsory powers given to Control Boards in the meat and dairy industries. Mr Mclntosh asked the Prime Minister for an announcement that he will amend the legislation governing these boards in that an Order-in-Couneil shall be necessary before the compulsory clauses may be brought into operation. Mr Coates, in reply, pointed out that the Government tenk office with that legislation in force and the present position could not be altered until Parliament met. He defended the attitude taken up by the Government in connection with the transfer of meat licenses, explaining how future possibilities justified their action. Regarding the policy pursued by the Dairy Board, Mr Coates made three important statements: Firstly, that an opportunity will be given for any interests affected to be heard before the complete taking over of the industry; secondly, that the producers shall be at le..st fairly unanimous regarding any suggested proposals; thirdly, that he personally was not in favour of the principle of control except where the national interests were affected.

Looking at the matter purely from a producer’s point of view, Mr Coates’ statement, that the producers should be fairly unanimous is certainly of the utmost importance, for herein lies the whole hone of contention. It has been said, and the Prime Minister repeated the statement, that the dairy farmers themselves voted the Dairy Produce Export Control Act into existence. In a sense this is true, but it should be remembered that when this vote was taken it was universally understood that the administration of the Act would follow on the lines adopted by the Meat Producers’ Board. Nothwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, definite statements had been made and definite promises had been given, not only by the leading exponents of the Bill, but by the numerous advocates employed at the time by the Dairy Council, that the compulsory clauses vf the Bill, although necessary to the effective working of the Act, would never be put into operation. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the Dairy Produce Act came into force as the result of direct misrepresentations on the part of those who were out for control at any price,

It was also thought at that time that a further safeguard was provided by the Act hi that an Order-in-Conncil was necessary oeiore the compulsory clauses could be brought into force. In this connection as well as in the matter of electing the Board, distinct blame is due to the then Government for the faulty and indifferent drafting of the original Bill. As we see the position, it is not so much a question whether pools and control are good or bad for the industry, nor whether they are good or bad for any section of the community. The main question in our opinion is whether the New Zealand dairy farmers are fairly unanimous in their desire for pools and control. Any amending legislation therefore—and legislation will no doubt be _ brought down before August—should be framed with this important point in view. We doubt whether the present suggestion of throwing the onus of control or no control upon the Government by w r ay of an Order-in-Council, will be appreciated in that quarter, or will find much favour even with the producers. After all, it is the producers who should possess the right of determining the disposition of their products and even the Meat Board, although not making use of these_ powers, would no doubt raise strong objections to such legislation. The best way of ascertaining the wishes of the producers is by means of a referendum. Precedents exist in Australian States, where pools among producers may bo formed when a referendum with a 75 per cent majority indicates the wishes of the industry in that direction. Although even such a system does not entirely guard against an injustice being done to a small minority, we ieel sure legislation on these lines, coupled with a democratic and truly representative method of election, would put an end to the present strife and dissension which bid fair to disrupt many of the advantages, co-operative activity has secured for the New Zealand Dairy Industry.