The Waipa Post. Published on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1923. THE DAIRY PRODUCE BILL.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1399, 4 September 1923, Page 4

The Waipa Post. Published on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1923. THE DAIRY PRODUCE BILL.

PARLIAMENT has left to the will of | suppliers to dairy factories the final decision whether or not the Dairy j Produce Control Act should really ! come into effect. Such a procedure i may perchance suit political motives, though it remains that Parliament is really elected to transact the country’s business and not to delegate its function to royal commissions, referendums, and the like. No matter the cost, however, and no matter the consequences, it seems that the political consideration is uppermost, and so we are to lhave another referendum. Our Parliament, having wasted much precious time early in the session, was working against the clock when ihe time arrived for consideration of this really vital question, affecting as it does one of the main primary producing industries of New Zealand. But since Parliament has failed; in fits duty it now remains for the producer to earnestly consider the pros and j cons of a complex question which, no ' matter the final result, is bound to have far-reaching consequences. The committee of the blouse heard lengthy evidence for and against the Bill, and it seems a pity that the evidence in £llll could not be sent to each and evefy producer. It was made perfectly clear that there is considerable and widespread opposition in Tara- | naki and from other quarters as well, j It may be taken for granted that this I opposition is founded upon perfectly sincere grounds. Opposition from the I metropolitan chambers of commerce may be at once discounted for what it is worth, but some weight must attach to the opinions of genuine producers who fear the operation of the Bill, particularly in respect to the compulsory clauses. That the argument is two-sided nobody doubts. In principle and in theory the pool is excellent, but a very great deal must naturally depend upon the machinery clauses jof the legislation. Is the producer really competent to vote on such a complex question with only scant knowledge of the actual proposal. To support a precious principle will be undoubtedly wrong if principle is hedged about with irksome and restrictive regulation. That is the vital point at issue just now, and how many producers know just what this Bill proposes? It is common knowledge that there will be a central council of thirty representatives, and that the Board itself will be given full power over storage, shipment, marketing, and control of the Dominion’s dairy produce. The general principles are splendid, and will find ready acceptance. But there are the questions of the levy to be considered (|d on butter and l-16d on cheese), and I the use to which this levy is put. It raises the whole question of compulsory co-operation, and is therefore somewhat akin to compulsory unionism such as we find in tlhe affairs of organised labour. Much, however, will depend upon the personnel of the Board, and it has yet to be proved that nine practical dairy farmers will be found to voluntarily give the time necessary to adequately transact the business involving the handling, marketing, and . disposal of millions of pounds’ worth of produce. It seems that a work of such magnitude should be paid for, and an adequate payment Should be made. For unless the members of the Board can give the time necessary does it not seem that the work —and that means the working policy — W ill fall on officials and that there will be virtually another Government department created? The pros and cons call for very earnest consideration before the vote is recorded. The principle is excellent, but care needs to be exercised lest a valuable principle is not made to overshadow conditions which, in operation, will sacrifice an ideal that should be in the interests of the producers. The great pity is that Parliament neglected its duty to carefully sift the evidence given to the Parliamentary committee, re-model tlhe Bill where necessary to avoid dangers disclosed in the evidence, and perform its rightful function in legislating for the welfare of the producers and the Dominion generally. To refer to the referendum a Bill that was likely to prove debatable simply because it was debatable seems only to demonstrate how far our Parliament has degenerated. It places a difficult and serious responsibility on the producers and commits the country to a great deal of unnecessary expense.