ELECTIVE COUNCIL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21882, 18 August 1934, Page 13

ELECTIVE COUNCIL

SMALLER MEMBERSHIP REPEAL OF ACT OPPOSED PARLIAMENTARY REPORT [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Friday The recognition of the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council to provide for a membership of six, two to bo elected by Auckland City voters, two by suburban voters and two by suppliers, was suggested in* the report of the Industries and Commerce Committee, which was tabled in the House of Representatives to-day. In accordance with legislation passed last year, the council now comprises nine members, three appointed on the recommendation of the Auckland City Council, two to represent other local bodies, two to represent milk vendors and two to represent producers.

The suggestion for altering the board's constitution was made by the committee in reporting on 17 widelysigned petitions seeking the repeal of the Milk Act. The committee recommended that the petitions should be referred to the Government for consideration. The committee, however, was of opinion that an amendment to the Milk Act was necessary and suggested that the Milk Council should consist of not more than six members,. Attitude to Repeal Bill The committee also reported that it had carefully considered the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Council Repeal Bill, promoted by Mr. A. Harris (Government —Waitemata), and was of opinion that it should not be allowed to proceed. Owing to a technical informality, this last portion of the report was later withdrawn on the suggestion of Mr. Speaker to allow the committee to redraft it, and the debate was taken on the report on the petitions. The chairman of the committee, the Hon. A. D. McLeod (Government--Wairarapa), said the majority of the committee was of opinion that the bill promoted by Mr. Harris should not be allowed to.proceed, but a substantial minority, if not a majority, considered that the Act should be materially amended. It was contended by Mr. Harris that the finding of the committee on the petitions was not in accordance with the evidence submitted. He was a member of the committee, but he had indicated earlier that he would take up a hostile attitude toward the report when it came before the House. Not one disinterested citizen of Auckland was among those representing the Milk Council before the committee, whereas 22,821 citizens, representing 27 per cent of the adult population of the metropolitan area, had signed petitions asking for the repeal of the Milk Act.

Visible Results of Act The only visible results of the Act to date were an increase in the price of milk by 66 per cent, heavy decrease in- the consumption of milk, and increased malnutrition. The Milk Council had made it clear before the committee that it intended to bring down amendments itself this year to give itself even wider powers. The Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes:' Local bodies have a controlling interest on the council. Mr. Harris: That is so, but, in practice, some of their representatives work in with the producing interests, stnd as far as the price of milk is concerned Auckland City Council representatives helped vendors to keep the price up. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, said the present system was not perfect and it was capable of improvement, but it should certainly not be abolished. It was not right to attempt to pull the farmer down to the same mudhole as Mr. Harris himself had helped to pull down the wageearner. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Government— Waitomo), supporting Mr. Harris, isaid he had hoped the Act would have brought some benefit to consumers. Actually, however, there had been an increase in the price of milk. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour —Manukbu) said it was a waste of time to discuss this bill or any other similar! bill in the House when the Government had forced people below the breadline, i The Labour Party wanted to see milk sold at 6d a quart, but also wanted to see people able to buy it. Signatures to Petition

Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour —Ros-. kill) challenged the sincerity of manyi of the petitioners. He said it was easy to secure signatures by pestering people when they were busy. Auckland people did not want the Act repealed, but amended. They wanted an impartial executive, and they did not want vendors to be allowed to buy surplus milk, as this led to abuses. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Independent —Eden) criticised the sectional nature of the Act, indicating that it might be more successful if it applied to whole country. There had been enthusiastic protest meetings in Auckland. He did not agree with Mr. Richards when he said the petitioners were not all sincere. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour —Auckland East) supported the recommendation of the committee. He thought it necessary in the interests of Auckland City that the Act should be amended in some way. Criticism in connection with the increase in tlva retail price of milk was referred to by Mr. W. W. Massey (Government —Hauraki), who said no mention had been made of the fact that

the price was based on the biggest cutthroat system ever introduced into Auckland province. If prices were taken over a period of 10 years, it would be found that the price fixed was not so unreasonable as some members would like the House to believe. The evidence given would bear out that the bulk of the Auckland milk was pasteurised and compared favourably with any milk produced in New Zealand. Although producers were certainly receiving 9d for contract milk, .contracts had been reduced, and they were not getting anything like that price all the year round.

Very Complex Mechanism Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour —Auckland Suburbs) said the difficulty that had arisen at Auckland seemed to bo due to the council elected, rather than to any defect in the Act, which gave the very widest powers.. He was not against popular elections, but there was already such a multiplicity of them that to establish another would produce a very complex mechanism of Government. The job could be done more easily and uimply if the Auckland City Council had a proper sense of its re- = sponsibilities. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central) said any fault was due to the way in which the Act was administered. An agitation had grown up round that discontent, and had been fanned by some people for reasons best known to themselves. Everyone knew the agitation was being for political purP °The report was then tabled.,