MARKETING ACT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20512, 2 September 1936, Page 12

MARKETING ACT

“FREAK LEGISLATION” ADDRESS TO FARMERS Describing the Primary Produce Marketing Act as ‘‘one of the best samples of freak legislation of which he had heard,” Mr P. J. O’Regan, Canterbury and Westland Group representative on the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union, yesterday likened the Act to a dictatorship in the course of an address to the Temuka branch of the Union. The Act involved a new conception of the functions of the State, said Mr O’Regan. Formerly it had watched and regulated the dealings of the people, acting in the light of an arbiter. Now 1 the State was assuming the role of employer and that could not be considered as being in accord with the democratic principles that British people had always upheld. If the country abandoned free markets and free trade it would have to be prepared for the abandoning of the right of free criticism of the Government and all that went with it. An instance of what might be expected had been afforded when the relief workers at Motueka had criticised the Government and had been severely checked by the Minister of Public Works. That could be taken as an example of things to come. Way Open to Break Contract Reviewing the legislation, Mr O’Regan said that Section 6 (b) stated: “The marketing in New Zealand, or overseas, of primary products whether or not such products have been acquired on behalf of the Crown.” That meant that it had been left open for the Government to break its agreement and not market all the produce. If the Minister of Finance was able to get a free market for 90 per cent of the Dominion’s produce in England it was left open for the Government to market the remaining 10 per cent anywhere and as it liked without the guaranteed price. The legislation had been curiously worded and the Government could avoid paying the guaranteed price for all dairy produce sold. It was then that Mr O’Regan termed the Act “freak legislation.” He said that the laws of the country were enacted with a view to the maintenance of order and good Government. They had stood the test of time and had been strengthened by experience, being laid down for the wise guidance of the people. The new legislation at-

tempted to cut arbitrarily across legislation that had stood for a considerable time and which the people had rightly come to consider permanent. Creation of a Dictatorship In regard to th? creation of a dictatorship by the Act, Mr O’Regan said that Section 7 provided for all the powers of the Department of Marketing to be exercised by the Minister. That meant that it was open for the Minister to have extempore regulations gazetted at any time, contrary to the spirit of the laws of the country. Before the last election the people of New Zealand had been told that one of the ideals of the Labour Party was to do away with boards. Yet the marketing legislation had included the retention of the Executive Commission, the setting up of a marketing committee, the creation of a new portfolio and the setting up of another Government Department, all at great cost to the country. All that had been done towards cutting down expense had been the retiring of two Government members from the Dairy Board. Mr O’Regan then described the state of mind of the people, which led to the Government 'faking charge of the marketing of the country’s produce. He said that the idea had its origin in Russia in the years after the war, an outcome of it being the Five Year Plan. All over the world dictators had taken to themselves powers that never could have been visualised as centreing in one person before the creation of the necessary state of mind of the people. A state of economic nationalism was created. The assumption of sole marketing authority by the State led eventually to the individual becoming the ward of the State. The speaker thought that the Farmers’ Union should set itself to arrest the dangerous state of affairs. It should not attack the deetails but the principles underlying the legislation. It lay now with the Parliamentary Opposition to state its proposals—whether it intended to extend the present work of the Government or abolish it. It was the Union’s place to formulate definite ideas and decide what action it wished to take in the matter. Work of Executive Touching on the work of the Dominion Executive since his election to membership of that body, Mr O’Regan said that one of its first works had been the taking-up of the problem of mortgage legislation with the last Government. The executive had considered that the granting of an equity to the farmer, in the case of an adjustment, and the abolition of the stay order were most necessary. Some progress was being made when the Government weht out of office. The' pro-

posals of the new Government were much more acceptable, but in his opinion it would have been better if both Governments had left the matter alone. It would have adjusted itself. Recently the matter of hours, wages and living conditions had been taken up with the Government and satisfactory progress had been made.