THE DAIRY BOARD'S BAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19792, 12 November 1927, Page 10

THE DAIRY BOARD'S BAN.

The threat by the Dairy Control Board to prevent the shipment of butter and cheese unless its demands are unconditionally accepted by exporters has been described by the Prime Minister as "drastic action." Yet what justification is there for this provocation of an industry that has already suffered so much from foolish experiments? With the advantage of conversations with the board, Mr. Coates explained that it does not propose to insist on the audit of accounts, while the Minister of Agriculture says the information regarding sales will not be used without the consent of those from whom it is extracted. In effect, the board is bullying dairy companies and produce exporters for no other purpose than to demonstrate its statutory powers. So far as the audit of overseas accounts is concerned, the board's powers are obviously extremely limited ; if such a proceeding has any sanction in the New Zealand legislation, it is certain that the authority would not enable it to enter the door of any overseas merchant who objected to its inquisitorial methods. That is, however, a minor consideration. The ques tion is whether the board is to be allowed to interfere with the sale and shipment of t produce—which it threatens to do—unless the owners comply with a set of unbusinesslike and pettifogging regulations. The Prime Minister and his colleague saythat only two out of 500 dairy companies have objected to the conditions. More than two have made public protests, and when the true character of limited control is appreciated there will probably be a more impressive demonstration of opposition. The Government disclaims responsibility for the board's proceedings. How can it do so when the formal prohibition of export, upon which the enforcement of control is absolutely dependent, was made by an Order-in-Council on September 19, explicitly endorsing the conditions framed by the board? If the Government can sanction a form of control including obnoxious condi tions, it can undoubtedly withdraw its authorisation by the same process. Moreover, the export licence is issued or refused, not by the board, but by the Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister's statement is a confession that the Executive Council of New Zealand is merely a clerk for the Dairy Con trol Board, its Minister of Agricul ture the obedient servant of its ad ministrative officers. It is an intolerable situation that any such organisation should be "vested by Parliament with duties and powers" that enable it to override the Government and harass an industry of vital importance to the country by actions that, carried to their contemplated conclusion, will inevitably provoke fresh resentment against New Zealand produce in the over seas markets. The responsibility indubitably falls upon the Govern men.t and Parliament to arrest the board's mischievous proceedings, nt least by recalling the Order-in-Coun oil which set them in motion, prefer ably by a thorough review of the board's statutory powers in the light of its misuse of them.