Farmer meat votes ‘confidential’

Press, 9 December 1983, Page 24

Farmer meat votes ‘confidential’

PA Wellington It is not possible to find out how farmers have voted in the referendum on meat marketing, says an organiser.

In spite of the fact that each of the 38,269 forms was separately numbered, confidentiality was not threatened, said the organiser, Mr Herbert Styles. Mr Styles said that the voting forms had been numbered in order to find out what the return had been from each district, and how districts had voted, so that these results could be related to the Electoral Committee.

“The connection is between the number and the district, not the number and the farmer,” Mr Styles said. There was only one list of names, which was a computer print-out, and numbers were not listed next to names.

Voting forms would follow the “usual” routine after a poll, being kept for a brief period and then destroyed, Mr Styles said. He was replying to a suggestion that, because the forms were numbered, they could be retained and the voting information used' in the future.

“Confidentiality is abso-

lutely secure and farmers need not worry,” he said. Mr Styles said that replies were coming in at the rate of 2000 a day. The cost of mounting the referendum was over $20,000, and had been met by individual farmers and others interested in the issue.

He declined to comment on whether any meat companies had helped pay for the poll, since donations were made on a confidential basis.

Voting papers must be returned by December 20, and the result would be known a few days later.