DAIRY BOARD CRITICISED

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1930, Page 6

DAIRY BOARD CRITICISED

PETITION TO HOUSE RECONSTITUTION SUGGESTED’ METHOD OF ELECTION, DISLIKED, A ' i it PARLIAMENT TAKES NO XCTION By Tclecraph.—Press Agaociitioa. Wellington, Last Night. The report of the Public Petitions Committee on tiic petition of A. H. Owen and 51 others praying for the amendment of the Dairy Produce Export Con ■ ’ trol Act was presented in the House of Representatives today by Mr. F.Lye. The committee reported that in the absence of sufficient evidence of any widespread desire for such a change us tie, petition requested it had no rccbniiiieudation to make. Mr... C.'A. - Wilkinson regretted that a ' more favourable! report had not ' been made. The Act. had beeii A hive of con- ' tention ever , since it was passed find today the board was costing the farmers ! ££o,ooo a year. Th© board cojild very well reduce the expenditure for at present tile personnel was too largo. Mr. T. W. McDonald said’ that under the system of voting on a tonnage basis t it was wealth that decided the constitution of the board and’ the average pit - ducer had little to do with it. He move I that the report be referred buck io tlio committee for further consideration. The amendment was seconded by Mr. ' W. D. Lysnar, who said the Dairy Board would have to be either reconstituted or scrapped. The Government liomindss , ■ and representatives of commercial’ interests should be eliminated from the boui"l, which at' present was loaded agiin-it ’ the producers. Mr. W. L. Martin suggested that U r - McDonald was not aware of what the petitioners actually sought. They liml been asked if they favoured tlm.reccustitutioii of the board and ! had tigreed that this would be an improvement, hut what they really desired was an'oppipr-. tuiiity of voting whether the , bbiird should continue to. exist or not. Mr. Martin added that he was satisfied this, was not wanted by the producers; He agreed there was dissatisfaction with ' the tonnage basis of election. . ' ' > Mr. J. A. Nash said he thought.the personnel of the .board could be reduced. The board had made serious mistakerin the past. It had been given powers t|uit were too wide.

“RUINATION OJJ-SMAL.L PORTS.”

Mr. J. T. Hogan took exception to the contract the Dairy Board had male with the shipping companies whereby it was not possible to ship produce from certain pprts speh as Wanganui. Tijis contract established a policy of centralisation to the ruination of a number of smaller ports and to The detriment of many dairy factories. He urged Aflat the Government lose no time in altering the constitution of the board., Mr. A. W. Hall said lie desired to remind the House that the pbtitiqn had’ asked that a poll of the, producers be taken to determine whether the Dai’y Board should or should not be iibblißibi. He had not hcarj one member .suggei-t that the board. should be abolished, lie considered an impartial .committee e .mll not Lave reached any other decision tlii:i that 'which had be »t reported tb; the House, especially iu view of the fat I that the petitioners rad. iipt produce.! any evidence of a Widespread desire lor the change advocated. Nothiug -oiild l": gained by referring the report back to ■the committee. ■■■, '■’■' <

Mr. W. Ji I’olsqn declared that, the. question of aiiialgamation of the Meat and Dairy Boards should, be given earnest consideration. The business eoiild be more economieiilly ahd equally efficien:--ly conducted by a single executive. Mr. Lye said he believed the powms of the Dairy Control ‘ Board should i>e restricted and he agreed with , those who had criticised the toiinagp basis of cle> tion. He'realised, however;; that the, reeoustitution of the board was A matter apart from-, the subject/of tlie ‘jjetilloit, and he assured the that nothing could be gained by referring tlid report back to the committee. / '

Mr. H. E. ,Hollai|d said he uiiderstitpd the object of .'the petition was to ..ave a referendum taken -on the question of whether the board should continue to exist. If that were so the’’proper wav to have, gone about the mutter wbiiifl have been to have presented a-petition signed by at least one-tenth of tfle pr->: dueers. •In that case the House .would have had no option’ but to have granted the request for a referendum. He agreed that There would be nd good purpose served fiy referring the report baes (0 the committee. At the same time ha pointed out that he and his party strongly disapproved■' of tlie present Tndcmocratic system of electing the board. The amendment wgs allowed; to be defeated on the voices and the report was laid upon tlie table.