AUCKLAND MILK COUNCIL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 15 June 1936, Page 6

AUCKLAND MILK COUNCIL

VINDICATION OF POLICY REPORT OF INQUIRY (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, 12th June. A vindication of the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council’s policy and support on nearly all points for the increased powers sought by it, is given | in a report of the Executive Commission of Agriculture in its inquiry into the city’s milk trade held in Auckland in March. The report recommends to Parliament that the powers be 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 report, and it was these clauses that Sir Francis Frazer, deputy chairman, Mr D. Jones, and Mr G. A. Duncan inquired into. The council indicated that it wished to proceed with three clauses. The first would give it power to resolve that after 60 days it had the sole right to purchase all milk for the district supply. The second, which was described as an emergency clause in case existing interests refused to carry out the services at reasonable rates, would give power to engage in the purchase, collection, treatment, storage distribution, and manufacture of milk. The third clause would enable the council to make a special levy as security for a loan to carry out its powers. The chief alteration the commission recommends is that a right of appeal in the fixation of prices should be provided in the form of an independent tribunal consisting of three members, one of whom would be Stipendiary Magistrate. The only other changes in the council’s original clauses are the limiting of the proposed levy to jd 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 price, and that treating 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 increased powers are necessary for the purpose of the original Act to be carried out. It says the council has done excellent work under great difficulties, and that on a logical view Parliament must grant the added powers or repeal the Act. The latter course would result in the evils which originally existed recurring.

MUNICIPALISATION BEST The commission is of opinion that the municipalisation of the supply would be the best solution of the problem, but that the powers sought would move most of the difficulties without causing a disturbance of the existing interests which municipalisation would create. It considers that the interests of 70 or 80 producer-venders could not be placed before those of 200,000 consumers. In many cases those who suffered from the scheme could be adequately dealt with by compensation, and those who could not, through being unsuited for other work, could be provided for by grouping their supplies. The interests of the consumers would not be affected, as they would have the choice of raw or pasteurised milk, and it would all be of uniform quality. To describe the rationalisation of a public utility service in the common interest as interfering with personal rights and liberties was a misuse of the language.