DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 21 February 1925, Page 5

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

LEGAL OPINION OF PROPOSALS, (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., and Mr. M. Myers, K.C., in a legal opinion on the proposals of the Dairy Control Board, state that the Board could obtain effective! control of manufactured dairy produce if the Government exercises its powers under section 12 of the Act, which enables it to prohibit the export of dairy produce except under licence. •‘lt will be seen, therefore,” says the opinion, “that a serious responsibility lies upon tlie Government, more especially if it be the fact, as we are given to understand that the passing of the Act and the affirmative vote of the producers to bring it into operation were brought about largely by the representation that although this drastic power of compulsorily dealing with dairy produce was conferred by the Act it was a ppwer which would never be exercised.”

Referring to the absolute control which may be exercised by the Board, counsel say that in the event of loss the owner of the produce or the person who mado advances against the produce would have very great difficulty in obtaining redress from the Board, and the remedy at law, if it existed, might be valueless.

Counsel point out that no provision is made by the Act. for the repayments of advances made by merchants or banks prior to the Board’s assumption of control. The question arises: How is the owner of the produce to be financed? Counsel say that even if a bank could be induced to lend 80 or 94 per cent., as at present, is it to be supposed that such advance would be made without the right of reclamation in the event of the sale of the proceeds being insufficient to repay the amount. Counsel also comment that the Act is silent as to how payments tq producers by the Board are to bo adjusted. ‘‘But in considering a statute which involves suck’an alarming and revolutionary invasion of the rights of private property,” they add, ”it is impossible, where' the Act is silent on a particular point, to express any opinion to what the legislation means.” The point is of such importance that it may have to be referred to the Court, even to the Frivv Council. The Board’s power of disposing of its principal’s goods without reference to the principal, even in defiance of the principal’s wishes, is a startling invasion upon the fundamental principles of our law. Not only that, but plainly the financial, system of dealing with dairy produce at present is struck at to the very root. Tt seems an entire misuse of words to apply the term co-operation to a scheme which involves the compulsory control of property belonging to a third party.