MEAT BOARD POLITICS —I Board Member’s Defeat: Win For Co-operatives?

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29368, 22 November 1960, Page 15

MEAT BOARD POLITICS —I Board Member’s Defeat: Win For Co-operatives?

[By Our Commercial Editor 1 ’

Claiming that the co-operative marketing organisations now had a “stranglehold" on the electoral committee of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, Mr C. J. Speight, of Ohaif Southland, raised a subject last week of which more will be heard.

Mr Speight was defeated in an election for the Meat Board this year. A sitting member of the board, he was unseated by Mr D. H. Cockburn, of Queenstown. Mr Speight’s allegations may have appeared to the casual reader as “sour grapes"; certainly this construction has been put on them in one or two of the subsequent comments on his statement. It is quite inconsistent with the reputation of Mr Speight, according to this reporter’s information, and may be dismissed without further comment. It remains to examine the evidence for Mr Speight’s charges, and the implications of them. These articles suggest that- there is some evidence, but that the charges must, at this stage, remain “not proven”; and there is no doubt that, if the co-operatives have “got a stranglehold on the electoral committee,” the implications for the meat industry, and indeed for the whole farming industry, are serious.

What evidence is there of a “stranglehold on the electoral committee?” of the 25 members of the elected committee, no more than five can be identified as directors of co-operatives: Mr H. A. Wagstaff, of Matamata (director, of Producers’ Meats,

Ltd., the North Island cooperative); Mr J. K. Ludbrook, of Te Kuiti (P.M.L.); Mr T. Davies, of Kaikoura (Primary Producers’ Co-operative Society); Mr J. E. Downes Roberts, of Middlemarch (chairman P.P.C.S.), and Mr W. S. Johnston (P.P.C.S.). There is no evidence that all these members voted for Mr Cockburn, but. as Mr Cockbum was nominated by Mr Roberts and seconded by Mr Davies, it seems likely that these five votes went to Sir Cockburn. Mr Cockbum’s nomination was supported' by “a 60 per cent, majority,” which would give him 15 or 16 of the 25 votes. There must therefore have been 10 or 11 other members of the committee who voted for him.

It may be an over-simplification to suggest that the voting on this issue was a case of those “for” the co-operatives and those “against.” Mr Roberts, in a telephone interview last week, denied suggestions of lobbying. “There was no collusion at all; the question of who was geing to vote for Mr Cockbum uf Mr Speight was never discussed before the meeting.” he said. The fact remains that Mr Cockburn was nominated and seconded by men known for their strong support of the co-operative movement: other members of the electoral committee—and, for that matter, the general public—are entitled to assume that Mr Cockbum is acceptable to the cooperatives as a member of the Meat Board. Mr Davies, who seconded the nomination of Mr Cockburn, has stated a case for diverting the reserve funds of the Meat Board into purposes furthering the ends of the co-operative movement. He is chairman of the meat and wool section of Marlborough Federated Farmers, but has so far not secured the support of the Dominion meat and wool section, nor of the electoral committee, for his proposals. A sub-committee of the electoral committee is at present examining his scheme and will no doubt report on it to the mid-year meeting of the committee at the end of March next year.

Mr Davies advocates abolishing the floor price support scheme, which he considers benefits the meat exporters rather than the Since 1955, he claims, “it has been shown that the New Zealand farmer has more to gain by co-operative meat marketing than by accepting schedule plus deficiency payment. “Government would surely now Willingly support moneys from the pool being used to assist increased co-operative killing and marketing.

“I would like to see the Meat Board and the electoral college reaffirm their support of the cooperatives and carry out that policy much more vigorously than in the past. If ‘his is carried on to its logical conclusion, meat trading must become less profitable and the industry must be sufficiently financial to take over some existing freezing works, if offered for sale.” (To Be Continued)